Talk:Factory farming/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 I fear we're still missing the point 1.1 And the primary title should be "factory farming" 1.2 origin of the term? 2 Capitalization error in article name 3 Cow image 4 Images 5 Break 6 See also list 7 WAS's revert 7.1 New name 7.2 A modern form of intensive farming 8 Request to undo Mass edits and merging by SlimVirgin 9 Examples of "factory farming" being used by mainstream news organizations 10 Source request 11 Factory farm definition by govt statutes 12 Crops 13 Chickens 14 List of sources and quotes found when searching for benefits 15 Reversion of POV bias, Rename and restoration of Intensive farming article 16 Nathan 17 Comment on the title of this entry 18 Proposed new lead in paragraphs - Comments welcome 18.1 Proposed First paragraph 18.2 Second paragraph 18.3 Third paragraph 18.4 Original text 19 Examples of mainstream use of "factory farming" 20 Intensive farming article redirects here 21 Factory farming v. intensive farming 22 Suggestion : Let's add, not delete. 23 Warning to slimvirgin and crum375 24 Three entries, one talk page, plus two comments 25 Exhaustive look through the linked references to support my change to the header 26 An article for every POV 27 Poor quality writing 28 American v. British spelling 29 Issues: Public health concerns 30 Industrial agriculture, opening paragraph 31 International tags..? 32 Lead 32.1 Add, don't remove 33 What we need here is a solution 34 Protected page status 35 Request the article be put into the more correct revision: the page block 36 List of Arguments For and Against the "new" version 36.1 NathanLee 36.2 Haber 36.3 WAS 4.250 (others may feel free to comment here as well) 37 Number of articles 37.1 Question for FNMF 38 Question for WAS 39 The lead 40 Request for Comment 40.1 Comments 40.1.1 SlimVirgin's previous argument - still relevent? 41 A request

I fear we're still missing the point

In an effort to "satisfy everyone" and avoid NPOV tagging and acrimonious exchanges and whatnot, this article is steadily losing focus. Earlier versions needed better writing, less point form, but they did get to the point.

• "Factory farming" is the common term, likely what most in a general audience will look up, not "industrial agriculture". Although not such a big deal, making IA the primary title seems more political to WP editors than reflecting the real world.

• FF/IA is not a method of agriculture, it is a fairly mainstream view of certain large-scale, intensive ag practices, seen as a group, and disfavored by its opponents (the ones who use the term!) for a set of central concerns. An IA?FF article must make this plain and clear. As it evolves, this is becoming more and more an argument, pros and cons.

As I see it, a useful general encyclopedia article on FF/IA should plainly set forth:

• what the term refers to
• why it exists (ie, some people think FF is a bad thing)
• some detail on what supposedly makes it bad, appropriately written so there is no confusing claims with absolute facts

Britannica has no problem doing this (while limiting the term to the animal aspect):

System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible.

The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.

Right now, I get bogged down in what should be the most informative, central sections, "Animals" and "Crops", it's kind of a DIY list where you're can argue factory farming for yourself. The rewrite reads better, but it's still a debate, not an explanation. Simply saying "factory farming says doing this, this and this is bad" is not the same as telling people that factory farming is bad. --Tsavage 00:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this essentially identical opinion to mine in Talk:factory farming:

I think you shouldn't merge the articles. The article about Intensive farming should go about a agricultural production system. The article about Factory Farming should describe where the name come from how it came in commen use and how it used. It shouldn't describe a argicultural production system.195.193.60.45 10:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

FF/IA is not a unified, formal agricultural production system, it's a descriptive term for a loose set of practices, characterized by "unnatural", assembly-line/factory-like conditions. It's as much a perceived ag philosophy as a method. --Tsavage 14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And the primary title should be "factory farming"

Really, appeasing some WP editors (ie certain segments of the general audience) by using the "less inflammatory" industrial agriculture as the title is as POV as it gets. The terms FF and IA may be synonymous, but common usage isn't. "Factory farming" is the popularly used, familiar term, not "industrial agriculture". This is reflected in several dictionaries, where "factory farm(ing)" is defined and "industrial agriculture" is not. --Tsavage 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is: What is the article about? It's about industrial agriculture (or intensive farming). "Factory farming" is a perjorative term... and the article isn't about the nature of the term (although it has a paragraph on that topic). The article is about the nature of industrial agriculture. It's not a question of being "inflammatory" - it's a question of being accurate. Jav43 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My 2c on the matter: "factory farming" is indeed a popular term for the process of "Industrialised Agriculture" typically associated with view presented by groups against farming. If you look at the body it even states that opponents call it "factory farming". So if one term is less inflammatory without being overly euphemistic for no point then I'd say we use that term, expecially as one of the terms has a longer historical use (factory farming is really just a popular activist title). some people might call milking "cow rape". I'd suggest the article be called "Industrial agriculture" as per the more popular use for non-activist/research description of the practice (Industrial agriculture is far far more referenced by a LARGE amount check out amazon and you'll find just 15 books for "factory farming" and 3,700 for "Industrial Agriculture"). "Industrial Agriculture" is an acceptable term to both POV and NPOV, whereas "factory farming" fails that test. Also: "factory farming" is a less descriptive word. Industrialisation is greater than just "factories". Industrialisation process is wider and describes more things without the connotations of a shed with chimneys, sad workers doing repetitious chores and smoke belching out.. NathanLee 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If we use this source as a reference, it uses the term FF as their primary title, and equates it to "intensive agriculture". I think we should rely on reliable widely published sources for deciding terminology, not our own perceptions. Crum375 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I mentioned amazon's book list as an example. 3,700 references to 15 seems like it is "widely published" don't you think? Titles for news articles specifically written to catch attention or invoke emotion aren't really a good reference on whether a term is correct, more so the opposite (e.g. confirmation that it is indeed a sensationalist term). NathanLee 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the book titles, but I notice that Google comes up with 454,000, 500,000 and 530,000 hits respectively for "Factory Farming", "Industrial Agriculture" and "Intensive Agriculture". Clearly all terms are in 'vogue', but that and the book titles don't really tell us which is more prevalent or apt today. I also noticed Intensive farming which seems to be on its own (oddly using the bolded term "Intensive Agriculture" in its lead), and I am not quite clear about its distinctions from the above, if any. I think FF makes sense for this article in light of the sources we have regarding the gestation crates and Mad Cow disease, but I am not sure how to resolve the stand-alone Intensive farming article. Crum375 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Although google might have a roughly equal view of internet sites, I think the published references would seem to be a more reliable source on the longer term and more widely used professional terminology (publishing a book of any sort is a pretty involved process.. any dummy can throw up a webpage or blog). Certainly I think it is a more encompassing term and you'd have to agree it isn't loaded with any activist leanings? I mean you can call people who don't believe in god "godless heretics" or you can say they're atheists.. One's loaded, the other less so. Both describe the current name applicable to non-believers-in-god under many religions.. But one's obviously a term used almost exclusively by one side. As is the case with this: not many farmers would say they're "factory farmers", but they might attend a conference on "Industrialised agriculture". And activists against them will also understand "Industrial Agriculture" as well.. NathanLee 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that if a major news outlet like CNN refers to it as 'Factory Farming', and that's an important source for us in the article, we should also use that term. I have no problem in redirecting "Industrial Agriculture" and "Intensive Agriculture" to it, but we need to resolve the status of the Intensive farming article. Crum375 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's where we're not agreeing. Factory farm does have an "angle" to it that Industrial Agriculture does not. Therefore it should be the primary article with the factory farm as a redirect. If the concept of calling something factory farm has enough meat in it (pardon the pun) then perhaps it can be a split article. But at the moment we've got issues trying to sort out Industrialised Farming/Agriculture (a term used by both "sides") and "factory farming" used almost exclusively by one side and not as descriptive. The process is that of Industrialising agriculture, not factory-ing farms.. It's like the change from hand made goods to mass produced products. Factory farming is a nickname only and not a very descriptive one. Just as the industrialised nations continue to evolve past the notion of countries with factories: as does the notion of industrialising the rural/fishing/etc industries.. Industrialised agriculture will continue to progress beyond the simple name of "factory farms". NathanLee 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and intensive farming/Intensive Agriculture is definitely NOT the same as factory farming. Intensive farming for vegetable/crop production is NOT factory farming.. This factory farming article is the least descriptive title of all. The terms Industrialised Agriculture is different to Intensive farming is different to factory farming. With factory farming being the only one which holds an implicit POV and used almost exclusively by activist groups. NathanLee 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as FF title, I prefer to use the news organization's title, as that to me indicates what they believe the current public terminology is. It seems to me that our mission and their mission are similar as we'd like the public to recognize our terminology, and if there is an issue of offensiveness, they would be very sensitive to it. To me personally, a factory means a place where things are produced in an efficient, organized and and mechanized fashion, and I see no problem with the term. My concern is that the terms seem to blur each other out. As I noted, we have "Industrial Agriculture", "Intensive Agriculture" and Intensive farming. The CNN article seems to equate FF with "Intensive Agriculture", and the separate Intensive farming article equates IF with Intensive Agriculture. So before we start moving things around, we need to nail down these confusing terminologies. Right now, the sources we use match the main title, so it's a good starting point, but the confusion with the others needs to be resolved if possible. Crum375 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ONE article's description versus 3,700 books on amazon (versus just 15 on "factory farming")? Where are your priorities in this Crum375? I've said why a term used by popular media is not a good one to base an article on. Let's set the bar a bit higher than cheap "read me! Sensation here!" type article blurbs. How about what scientists would refer to it? Here's a link [url]http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/a-new-agenda-for-agriculture-research.html[/url] as an example. The public terminology as you call it is neither correct (it describes just one nickname given to certain practices), nor broad enough, nor a recognised term by those who actually are in the farming industry. You CANNOT use an activist term to describe a field of agriculture.

That's like having an article on nuclear weapon fabrication called "Baby killing mass murdering doomsday devices creation". Sure, anti-nuclear protesters might term it that, but I'd defy you to find any conferences, publications or scientific journals on that topic.

I think some are trying to turn this area of AGRICULTURE into a sounding board for animal rights concepts, which is most definitely POV. Whether you agree or disagree with the principles that doesn't make wikipedia a place to have all references to anything relating to intensive farming, industrial agriculture muddied and turned into "evil factory farming". Not all intensive farming OR industrial agriculture is able to be described as "factory farms" (which is such an ill defined concept.. as opposed to the concept of Industrial agriculture or intensive farming). Square peg, round hole: ain't going to go no matter how hard you hit it with the edit button hammer.. NathanLee 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not sure that the title we use should necessarily be the one used by the most books or scientific papers published. I think the topics that we are addressing here are the pros and cons of modern large-scale mass production high efficiency mechanized farming that is used to produce much of the food on western supermarket shelves. Given this topic, we are trying to present the pros and cons of these techniques, as seen by their proponents and opponents. Since we are required to use reliable sources, the most notable and reliable sources we have for this topic and its controversies are the big news outlets, like CNN, Reuters, Washingon Post, BBC, etc. They all seem to be calling this 'Factory Farming' as a primary name, with 'Intensive Farming' or 'Intensive Agriculture' as a secondary synonymous name. I think it makes sense for us to pattern ourselves after these big news media, since they are the most reliable and notable. Crum375 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see one that shows that the set of all things that are "Factory farms" is the same as the set of all things that is "Industrial agriculture" which is the same as the set of all things that is "intensive farming". Factory farming appears to mean "any big farm", or "any high density of livestock farm". That doesn't fit intensive farming process as applied to crops, or to fish.. Or to the concept of any non traditional type of farming (e.g. you could regard the ova/egg donor concept as "intensive farming" as related to human reproduction.. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with factory anything, just high inputs to maximise outputs).. NathanLee 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you elsewhere, the wiki process is very straightforward - find relevant and notable reliable sources. In this case, we have very reliable and notable sources (i.e. the big news media) using the term Factory Farming, showing us it's equivalent to intensive farming, intensive agriculture, etc. Additionally, they tell us that there is controversy - that opponents believe it has all kinds of drawbacks, while proponents have counter arguments. This is what this article is about. If you can find good sources, for either side, please let us have them. Just discussing a lot of your own ideas and personal knowledge on the Talk page is not productive or efficient. Thanks, Crum375 03:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm being cautious to respect other's contributions and avoid an edit war with an editor particularly when they have in the past tag team reverts they don't like with yourself. "Efficient" is not the same as someone merging articles and ploughing on ahead with no regard to the discussion on here. I would be in my rights to restore things to the pre-massive update frenzy by SV and rename the page: but I'm attempting to not be a wanker and follow that practice.

I posted on SV's page a suggestion that in a sign of good faith she should revert the changes and take this up in the discussion page as per polite/decent/respectful process. She's then doubled her efforts and just gone ahead and continued. I'll be renaming the page to the less POV term "Industrial Agriculture" shortly in the abscence of any argument why a term's popular use should outweigh choosing a Neutral name. As I've given the example of anti-names not getting picked over names used by the industry itself. If you can show me where the primary title for an industry is that of a term used by their opponents and not themselves then I'll be happier. But if that was the case: then the PETA page should be named "People for Eating Tasty Animals" given the number of casual users who attempt to change it that way.

I still cannot see why such a massive rewrite of the page had to take place at speed and at the expense of the discussion process on here. You also have no sources that say that the term is " showing us it's equivalent to intensive farming". I've posted up the point that in legal terms "factory farm" may merely mean "big", but as I'm not the one making the original research that these terms are exactly equivalent. The use of the term factory farm does not apply to fish or vegetable crops that I can see. Nor does it replace the term "intensive farming" that I can see. The only original research going on appears to be the attempt to use wikipedia to turn an activist assumption into a somehow valid and most suitable term.

Now I've been rather polite and restrained my editing/renaming efforts and asked for some degree of courtesy by SV to stop just steamrolling her POV forward. I think these actions are showing that SV has a significant agenda/desire to muddy the waters as per activist definitions of something. There is no urgency unless you have an agenda to push though. What I should just do is revert all the changes and restore the pages until you have evidence of the equivalency of the terms IN THEIR ENTIRETY and a reason for picking an inflammatory term over a non inflammatory more broad term. NathanLee 09:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other editors. Try instead to address the merits, such as the reliability or relevance of sources, or the neutrality (or lack thereof) of their presentation in the article — this is what Wikipedia is all about. I also suggest that we move from this thread to the bottom, to avoid repeating ourselves. Crum375 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

origin of the term?

I see a whole section on the origin of the term "factory farm," but it seems the term is self-explanatory; what I would like is an explanation of the term "battery farm." 69.140.164.142 07:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization error in article name

Has anyone else noticed that the capitalization in "Farming" in the article's title is ungrammatical, and against WP:TITLE? I plan to move this page back to Factory farming - I just wanted to give some advance notice to avoid alarming anyone, since this article's title has been debated before. --G Rose (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just done it, though I see we now have two talk pages that will need to be merged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cow image

Jav, please stop adding those cow images to the lead. You spent weeks reverting to an image that stated explicitly it was a family farm. Now you're adding one where we have no idea what it is. Do not add images of factory farms unless there is a source saying it's an image of a factory farm/industrial agriculture. Not your own POV. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And who is to say something is/isn't a factory farm? The ONLY organizations that will certify farms as "factory farms" are those who are opposed to industrial agriculture, which is some insane POV. A family farm can very well also be a factory farm - a family run farm can be industrial agriculture. Why don't you actually look at the image and see what it portrays rather than blindly following the guidelines of biased activist organizations? Jav43 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As we have this dispute, you need to supply a reliable source showing that the cow image is of a factory farm, or some equivalent expression. Otherwise this is your guess, and that's OR. Or find another image of a factory farm, but you can't keep adding this disputed one that could be of anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just how can you say that the image of a number of cows in a barn doesn't meet common qualifications for a "factory farm"? That's what people mean when they say "factory farm."Jav43 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's your proof that the images of the sows is a factory farm? What if I say the hogs were just placed there for a moment while their usual homes were cleaned? Jav43 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sows might have been paid to model for that photograph! Once the lights were off and the cameras had stopped rolling, it was out of the crate and back to the hotel for a quick snort of cocaine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have never been to a hog farm - or even a fair :P. Crates of that type are exactly what are used to sort hogs for cleaning/medication/etc. Jav43 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a source that says that's what it is; see the image page. You must supply a source showing that yours is, or find another one that definitely is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-read the image page. It doesn't say it's a factory farm. It just says SOME hogs are confined in gestation crates. It doesn't even say that the depicted hogs are confined in gestation crates. Per your fallacious argument, I'm removing the image of the sows. Jav43 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're being disruptive now. It's from a website that publishes photographs of factory farming. It is clearly a photograph of it. What do you mean by "It doesn't even say that the depicted hogs are confined in gestation crates." Are you saying these are not gestation crates? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the image of the sows does not have authority stating that those sows are on a factory farm - which is EXACTLY what you're saying about the image of the cows.Jav43 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is one that collects images of animals in factory farms. That is all they do. You're engaged in a WP:POINT here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that I believe both images can be included. But in accordance with your interpretation of policy, neither can. If your interpretation is to stand, then it must be applied universally. That's all I'm doing: applying your interpretation universally. As for whether the website collects images of animals in factory farms... you are violating WP:NOR to reach that conclusion. That isn't what the website says about the image. Additionally, the website is questionable, as it exists only to argue a specific activist agenda, rather than to describe the scientific or social status quo.Jav43 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that the real problem is that there are two articles here, not one: there is one article on industrial agriculture and one on the term "factory farming". These articles should be separated. They don't work merged like this. Jav43 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

They're about the same issue, which is the industralized production of meat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, one is about a perjorative term, while the other is about a production method. Jav43 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Tsavage's discussion earlier on this page.Jav43 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: That image and associated material from a site called factoryfarming.com which I would say should not be allowable for a number of reasons as it is a private site/run by an anti-factory farming/pro-vegetarian group (see the bottom of the page) and is not necessarily indicative of factory farming (what's to say they aren't used by a farm that the only cages are those which are used when the pigs are fighting?). I ended up here off the PETA page as was discussing farming and I asked my flatmate who had parents who own a "family farm" and about the picture: "Gestation pens" (not the name used in Australia), he said they are used when sows are pregnantso there are less fights/territorial issues (this is all sourced verbally, not from an internet reference.. So I'm not expecting it to be added by the way). They are not kept in them for any significant length of time except when they're likely to be fighting. So to claim that these pens are the standard practice is very much POV (point of view) from a site created in opposition to certain farming practices (would that qualify as a "hate site"?). I would not regard an anti-factory farm lobby group site as a reliable, independent, NPOV resource for this page as per the wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources.. What are people's views on this?

If you look at the referenced article (if you exclude the biased source of the factoryfarming.com site) it talks about the reasons why those gestation pens are used (there's no mention that they're exclusively used by "factory farms") but the humane society's site talks about a number of issues with them.. But given they are widely used throughout the pig industry: I'm not sure whether that would constitute just industrial farms..

quote from the Washington post article: "The American Veterinary Medical Association and other organizations recognize gestation stalls and group housing systems as appropriate for providing for the well-being of sows during pregnancy," he said. "We support the right of all producers to choose housing that ensures the well-being of their animals and that is appropriate for their operations."

So at very least there should be a mention of the views of the vet society as having some benefits.

So I'd propose a different source be found that's not from a private/lobby site that backs up: a) gestation pens/cages are a factory farm only practice (the article mentions that animal rights groups regard it as a feature, but that isn't the same as factually being a feature of factory farms. Fact is that sows fight while pregnant or with litter ([1]). b) the claim in the note is correct for the picture involved. As it is the picture may not depict the size of cages mentioned (the joining of two separate sources one for size and the other for a picture from a lobby site) is original research and cannot be verified. Caption should relate to the image, not original research. I'm not saying we need a scale on every picture: but an image caption that states something about the picture that can't be found in the original source of the image and could possibly be wrong is worth deleting.

I also dispute the idea that factory farm and family farm are two mutually exclusive concepts. I'm with Jav43 on this point also. "factory farm" vs "family farm" is a constructed "choice" from anti-farming lobby groups, not anything factual or verifiable..NathanLee 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

A few things: a) the image of the sows is clearly POV (see the archived talk page) and thus, if it should be included in this article at all, belongs in the "arguments against" section. b) cattle on a feedlot is much more representative of typical views of "Factory farming" and should as such be included here. c) the image of the sows is incomplete, as it does not explain the gestation crates: it tends to give uneducated viewers the wrong idea about gestation crates and their necessity. If the image is included, the caption should explain the necessity of the gestation crate. Jav43 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try our best to adhere to proper sourcing. When you say "cattle on a feedlot is much more representative of typical views of 'Factory farming'", that sounds like WP:OR, unless you can come up with an image and a reliable source that says that in respect to that image. Crum375 00:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You said with respect to the image of the sows, to quote, "I think this one is more typical factory farming". That sounds like WP:OR. (By the way, how on earth is factoryfarming.org [the source of the image of the sows] a reliable source? Thinking that a propaganda site is "reliable" is ridiculous.) Do you deny that a feedlot qualifies as a "factory farm"? Jav43 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the wrong idea it gives readers about gestation crates? You said before they aren't used in North America, and I found you a reliable source that says they are. What is your other issue with them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the archived discussion. The crates are severe POV. Without description of the reasons farmers use the crates, the POV is only expounded. Jav43 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's your OR that they're necessary. The largest pork producer in the States is going to phase them out, so they clearly don't agree with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I misspoke. I should have mentioned the "value" of the gestation crate, not the "necessity" of it. But with your statement in mind, how are the gestation crates representative of "factory farming" or "industrial agriculture" if "[t]he largest pork producer in the States is going to phase them out"? Jav43 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is going to phase them out. They haven't done it yet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet, when the farm no longer uses gestation crates, will is still qualify as "industrial agriculture"? See, the problem is that a gestation crate is not a factor that decides whether a farm is or is not a "factory farm". Thus the image of the hogs in the gestation crates is nothing more than perjorative. As a gestation crate is not determinative of whether a farm is a "factory farm", including the image of the gestation crates in this article is not helpful. If it is included at all, it should be in the "arguments against" section. Jav43 01:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(from SV talk) Which cattle image don't you like? The one with the cows on the feedlot? Why did you relocate the image of sows again? Have you read the relevant discussion from the talk page (which you archived)?Jav43 00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The top one that gives no indication what type of farm it's from. Please don't keep moving the sow image. It's an iconic image of factory farming; even the producers are starting to recognize that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. What's your proof that it's "iconic"? It's hypocritical for you to say that the sow image is "iconic" while simultaneously removing what I say is a much more common representation: the feedlot. Jav43 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is a feedlot more typical of a factory farm (as opposed to any other kind) than a gestation crate? And why do you think that feedlot is in a factory farm? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When people think of a "factory farm" (or rather, "industrial agriculture"), they think of large numbers of animals. A feedlot (or rather, a CAFO) by definition (in the US) has at least 1,000 head. That makes a feedlot a solid example of "factory farming". On the other hand, sows in gestation crates are not necessarily "iconic" of factory farming - the few sows depicted may be the only sows living on the farm, and gestation crates are in limited use (where used, they are only used during part of the gestation period). Gestation crates can be used on very small operations. Feedlots cannot. Jav43 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The top image says it's from a feedlot. A feedlot is by nature an example of "industrial agriculture". Why are you removing that image? Jav43 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the sow image is that the image purports to portray particular hogs on a particular farm, and does not claim to be at all typical of the swine industry - or of the agricultural industry at large. Jav43 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Gestation crates are widely used" is your OR. Jav43 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your new caption for the sows image still fails to explain the reason farmers use gestation crates. Jav43 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gestation crates are widely used. We can add something from the WPost about why they're used. Bear in mind, of course, that if sows tend to crush their piglets, the species would not have survived, so the sentence about them being "necessary" has to be carefully written. What is meant is that they are convenient in a situation where sows have been overfed and given growth hormones and are much larger and heavier than is healthy for them or their piglets. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sows crush their piglets in the wild, too. This is why most litters in the wild will only have about 6 piglets, while litters raised on farms will have around 10 piglets. I don't understand your reference to sows being overfed or whatever - sows specifically are not overweight, as being overweight decreases fertility and leads to birthing difficulty. Jav43 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added what the WPost says is the reason for them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did SV remove the picture of the chickens? Jav43 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's overlapping the lead now. You wanted information to be added about the crates to the cutline, and so that fills that section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, do we have a source that the chicken farm is a factory farm? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but we also lack a verifiable source that the hog farm in question is a "factory farm". Jav43 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Family farms don't use gestation crates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. That's entirely WP:OR. Jav43 01:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This leaves a question unanswered: why is the lead the image of the sows at all? Is there any reason other than your claim that the picture of the sows in gestation crates is "iconic"? Can you honestly claim that the image gives a fair portrayal of industrial agriculture, from an encyclopediac perspective, rather than being intended to prejudice people against industrial agriculture from the start? Jav43 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a well-known signifier of intensive farming of animals. It's iconic. It causes customers, including those who sell meat, a lot of problems. Of all the images there are in the public mind of factory farming, the gestation crate is possibly the most prominent.

All you're doing is trying to whitewash the issue, and claiming you know best, but you were arguing until recently that they're not used at all in the U.S., when in fact around one million sows are in crates in the U.S. at any given time. They are in widespread use, they are widely regarded as cruel, and they are very typical of the situations factory farming creates by trying to industrialize the reproduction of living beings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you admit that the only reason you include that image is because it speaks out against "factory farming". How exactly is that good encyclopediac style? Shouldn't an image that portrays "factory farming" without being intended to take a side be the one that leads the article? Jav43 01:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgins assertion that "family farms" do not use gestation crates is unlcear. They are individual families that own pig farms that ue gestation crates...--Agrofe 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it comes down to what your definition of 'family farm' is. The term conjures up images of mom and pop with their little small-holding with a few cows and chickens. Whereas in fact 'family farm', in the sense you are using it means 'a farming business owned by a family' - which could be anything.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you equate "family farm" with "hobby farm", then? Regardless, there is no reason why a "family farm" would suddenly not qualify for that term if it made use of gestation crates. Gestation crates are not a determining factor. Jav43 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming has a poor reputation. Even McDonald's is starting to worry about this for commercial reasons, as was seen by the welfare committee they established, which pushed its suppliers to start phasing out gestation crates over the next ten years, as they are doing in Europe over the next seven. Wikipedia reflects majority and significant-minority opinion, in roughly the proportion to which they are represented by reliable sources. Agrofe and Jav43 want to write an article that sings the praises of factory farming. That would not be in line with our policies.

The gestation crate image is an image that is iconic of factory farming. That is precisely why McDonalds was so concerned about it. It is the type of practise that gives industrial agriculture a bad name, and it does have that bad name. Jav and Agrofe want to stick to images of uncertain origin that show happy cattle and well-fed chickens.

From now on, please use only images where you can show that it is an image of a factory farm, either because the source says it is, or because we have the name of the farm and we can find out that it is for ourselves. That is in line with WP:V and WP:NOR. No more WP:POINT. No more endlessly reverting over months. Just stick to the policies. If we end up with multiple images that our sources say are from factory farms that would all be suitable for the lead, then we can discuss which one(s) to use, but at the moment we don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are biased, Slimvirgin. Your opinion has been perverted by propaganda. You want to write this article to show that "factory farming" or rather "industrial agriculture" is bad. That's wrong. I think the article should describe "industrial agriculture" from an unbiased point of view. You seem to say that cows/chickens/whatever in "industrial agriculture" are "unhappy" and aren't "well-fed". That's ridiculous and is wholly your POV and the POV of propaganda-based animal rights activists. Remove the bias and prejudice and POV from your edits and I'll be happy. No more POV, Slimvirgin! (And the gestation crate image is NOT iconic of "factory farming" - it is iconic of the arguments used by animal rights activists in opposition to industrial agriculture.)

Slimvirgin wants to write an article that sings the horrors of factory farming. That would not be in line with our policies. Jav43 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Jav43, let's focus on the issues and not the editors. I think that much of the focus of this article is on the controversy, so I added a blurb in the lead, and also restored the sows image, as I think it depicts the controversy better than just a bunch of cows feeding. Crum375 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The sows image advocates one side of the controversy and as such is improper POV.

Re: issues v. editors: I must admit I agree. I was prompted to address Slimvirgin directly because Slimvirgin accused Agrofe and myself of attempting to insert POV into this article, while she is actually the one promoting a POV article. Jav43 03:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the sows image: if it shows what is common practice in factory farming, which is sufficiently controversial that McDonald's plans to stop using it, and is a visually effective image that gets the point across, then I see it as an informative way to explain the controversy to our readers. Just having some cows feeding gives no special information to the readers, as far as I can tell. Crum375 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you admit you placed the image there because it portrays "factory farming" in a negative light. How can you avoid recognizing your action as POV? You're including the image of the sows ONLY because it portrays "factory farming" poorly - not because it portrays industrial agriculture in general. (Gestation crates aren't an intrinsic component of "factory farming".) You need to remove the POV you continually insert into this article. Jav43 04:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your picture of cows could be from anywhere. It doesn't show anything that is distinctive about factory farming, and you've offered no evidence that it's not from a family farm. The other image does show something that is limited to factory farming, and we do have evidence from a source that it's from a factory farm. Your edits to this page are very disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what picture you refer to. The picture of cows on a feedlot? A feedlot qualifies as a "factory farm" as discussed supra and in the article. The picture of dairy cattle? That has just as good "evidence" as your image of the sows. (In actuality, the propoganda-based presentation of the image of the sows is very poor "evidence" of anything. A website dedicated to propaganda (like factoryfarming.org) is not a verifiable source.)

Gestation crates are not limited to "factory farming" and to claim that they are is simply ludicrous.

To be honest, I find your edits distruptive. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you are only interested in portraying "factory farming" in a poor light and are not interested in creating an unbiased encyclopediac article. Jav43 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're a single-issue editor who has made only 122 edits to articles in two and a half years. [2] You either have no clue what you're talking about and are unwilling to use sources to educate yourself, or you're trying to mislead others intentionally. You wrote recently that gestation crates are illegal in the U.S. [3] But in fact, they're widely used on factory farms in the U.S. [4] with 60-70 percent of America's six million breeding sows confined in them. [5] Your sole contribution to the encyclopedia for months has been to try to remove this image on the grounds that is doesn't represent standard use, although it very much does. If that kind of editing continues, you're likely to be reported for disruptive editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. All you did there was make a personal attack. That was about as useless as can be imagined. (As for gestation crates being illegal? We already went through that on the archived talk page.) Jav43 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we didn't. Please explain the sense in which they are illegal in the U.S. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We already talked about this. They're illegal in Florida. Jav43 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Florida does not equal the U.S.! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but florida is IN the US. Therefore it is fair to say that something is illegal in the US. Had he said "throughout the US". If we're going to talk about single topic I'd point out "Pot Kettle, black".

Everyone's here to contribute whether they contribute much over 2 and a half years or not. My contributions so far are motorbikes, techie stuff, a small Australian town, random spelling fixes and a couple of paragraphs on animal welfare..

Your interest in wikipedia seems to be fairly narrow too if you run things through your magic tool. [6] I don't see much interest outside Animal Rights and Jewish/Antisemite/Israeli related articles.. Does that mean you have less right to speak than myself (given I have a with a wider range of interest categories than "Jewish related" and "animal rights related"). :P I'd suggest a chill session for a bit and we can sort out fixing up this article without need for referring to people's credentials, especially when it's irrelevant and hypocritical to do so.. NathanLee 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jav43, I am not familiar with your history here, but regarding the image, it is the best one we have that clearly conveys 'factory farming' as opposed to just a 'modern farm', and it also best highlights the controversy between the opponents and proponents of factory farming. If you have another sourced image with these attributes, then let's have it and we'll compare its merits. Crum375 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't portray "factory farming". We have nothing that says that gestation crates are unique to "factory farming". It also is extremely POV. That's bad. It doesn't show the controversy - it shows one side of the controversy. We need a factual image, like cattle on a feedlot. Jav43 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It shows animals that are confined to a tight space, like in a production line in a factory, and unlike the feeding cows image, we are told by the source that they actually spend prolonged periods of their life there. That to me represents the crux of the article - to the proponents the 'production line' means efficiency and safety, while the opponents see it as abusive and harmful. The key to a good image in the lead is that it has to encompass what the article is about. This image does, while the feeding cows image, which just shows cows lined up to eat, does not convey that message. Crum375 17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The only characteristic that seems to be universal to the definition of "factory farming" is the size of an operation. It seems that nearly everyone agrees that a "factory farm" must have large animal numbers. Animals being confined in a tight space is *not* a characteristic inherent in "factory farming". It may be an added factor leading to a farm being termed a "factory farm", but it does not by itself qualify a farm as a "factory farm." You're right about the distinction along a "production line", but the image of the sows inserts POV into that production line - the picture was taken and posted in order to inflame and provoke. The lead image should reflect the factual nature of "What is a factory farm?" This should be a feedlot or other collection of large animal numbers. It should not be a POV image of sows in extremely tight quarters. The image of the sows is *not* informative, except to explain why some people oppose "factory farming". The lead image should be informative of the nature of the term "factory farm". Jav43 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, a 'family farm', at least by the USDA's definition, can be of any size, as long as it's owned and managed by family members. Thus, I don't see how size alone is a distinctive characteristic. OTOH, we agree that efficient 'production line' process is associated with 'factory' farming. So at this point it seems to me that the sow's image is the only one we have to convey a distinctive image of factory farming. I don't see it as POV at all - the proponents consider that technique efficient and safe, while the opponents see it as harmful, and clearly it conveys a 'production line' message, so it seems nearly ideal to represent the contents of this article. Crum375 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "family farm" issue. But I think we need something that's firstly more indicative of the process of factory farming: not just one aspect that's not really inherent to factory farming (e.g. if you were to use this as a criteria in europe where it is phased out: there'd be no "factory farms" So I think we need something showing the process or the "Factory like" nature without tying into what sounds like a process that'll be gone in a few years anyhow).NathanLee 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that 'factory farming' is a controversial issue in western countries - it is regularly discussed by people. This article should reflect this discussion. If major world companies that used 'factory farming' methods are ceasing to do so (such as McDonald's) then this should be reflected within the article. Choosing a picture that is typical of factory farming is not POV. It is simply a picture that shows something that is typical in the industry. To choose an image of cows in a feedlot doesn't show an aspect of the industry that is often discussed, so is not a good all round 'representative' image.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article should reflect controversy. It does that. The article should NOT choose a side, which is what the image of the sows does. I don't propose removing the image of the sows - I simply propose placing it in the "arguments against" section where its POV belongs. Jav43 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The WPost says gestation crates are used in factory farming. If you want to say they might also be used by family farms, please find a source. Otherwise you're just giving us your own opinion, which was wrong about the crates being illegal in the U.S. and might be wrong about this too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The WPost article does not actually say that. It says "[t]he largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming." Jav43 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it logically the concept is not linked to family ownership of a farm. The WP article says "animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming". That's the only reference to factory farming in the article and it is referring to animal welfare group opinion..

There's nothing that says family farm ownership precludes the use of these. The article talks of "contract suppliers" as well as the company owned farms.

The emphasis is on the whole industry in other articles (e.g. the humane society and the statements about Europe banning the process). So I'd say that the onus is on you if you wish to assert that firstly family ownership of farms is mutually exclusive to factory farming process (which logically doesn't seem to match.. Nor is it supported by the article, unless an article that mentions a claim by a group means that group's claim is correct automatically). We are talking about a process, nothing to do with ownership (to be honest the only groups that use this family versus factory argument are animal lib groups that I've read information by). Nothing that says an "organic farm" can't use these either, they're entirely unrelated to the rest of the operation of the farm or the farming concept. If you separate pregnant sows using gestation crates, then you use gestation crates. Nothing exclusively linked to factory farming process..

I can't help but think that rather than a photo we need some sort of diagram that highlights the defining characteristics of factory (e.g. "production line, repeatable one step-> next step -> product" type concept). Focus on one aspect of pig raising relating specifically to pregnancy is a bit of a niche that will probably have us all arguing for the next decade about its relevance. NathanLee 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Definately. Jav43 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Break

1. "Family farm" is not defined as "nonfactory farm".
2. You are editing warring on whether the pic goes at the top or in the argumenst section. May I suggest you compromise and put in somewhere not at the top and not in the arguments section?
3. "Factory farm" is like "life" in that it is a process and not any one static thing. Pics capture process badly.
4. Factory farms that don't pollute and don't mistreat animals are still factory farms, just as other factories made safer and unionized are still factories. Mistreated animals is not the essence of factory farming. WAS 4.250 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It's not clear how a farm could be highly automated and not be regarded as mistreating animals or polluting the environment (for those who regard factory farms as doing that). In other words, I'm not sure your hypothesis of that not being a necessary implication is correct. But regardless, all we have to do here is report what reliable sources say about it. The gestation crates issue is, as the WPost article said, regarded as the single-most controversial aspect of factory farming, and one of the things it is best known for outside farming (i.e. among the public), which is why McDonalds focused on it too. When animal rights advocates and McDonalds both agree on something, you know you have a notable issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is clear to me ... but the important thing as you point out is "all we have to do here is report what reliable sources say about it." I disagree that the gestation crates issue is anything like what you just said, but maybe what I hear you saying is less than an adequate representation of your full considered opinion. I have no intention of getting into much analysis right now, but power and value systems are the essense of the issues involved and gestation crates are simply a stalking horse and poster boy for the clash of value systems and the power struggle to prevail in manifesting those value systems. WAS 4.250 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking there's some blurring public dislike of "gestation crates"/"cages" with public dislike of "cramped conditions". Cramped, grubby conditions with sick or distressed animals are what we (well, decent human beings would generally) have issues with. You could equally show footage/pictures of the results of fighting by the animals (e.g. trampled piglets) and you'd get the same response.

If you move past the shock value of single images and look at with/without combined with discomfort/distress on average then you get a balanced view of things. You can argue the fundamentalist view that there should be no human intervention in animals' lives, but that neglects the predator protection/disease prevention/food provision etc aspect.. So on the whole we have to examine (and present) the reasons behind some of the choices we see in factory farming techniques.

So back to the gestation crates: they weren't just created to torture animals, the reasoning was that without them the farmers were noticing lots of fights/distressed animals. As alternatives are explored and researched the views will change, but in the situation of having lots of animals together (e.g. farming in general) it is (perhaps) a better solution than without (where animals would fight etc). Ideally you'd have each sow able to have as much land without competing females/agressive males.. But farming tends to have constraints that prohibit that. So anyhow, I don't think this article should be focussing purely on criticism/controversy of particular aspects of it: it should be primarily on the process.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanLee (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Then why are they not used outside factory farming, if sows fight all the time? How were pigs able to evolve if all they do is fight each other and kill their offspring? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are they not used outside factory farming? I haven't yet seen anything that says only factory farms use this technique. As I said we've got a reference to animal welfare groups saying it's a trademark.. But as I said logically there's nothing about the practice of separating sows that is tied to factory farming. To be fair: pigs in the wild (e.g. wild boars) are quite violent (see wild relatives of domestic pigs: [7], attacks: [8], and behviour in "normal" farms" [9]). So it's really vast amounts of space that keeps them apart and squabbles rare I'd say. Just like any animal: given enough room they're fine. But if you have a high population like on a farm then that normal natural check is removed.. The concept of a protective mother in nature is pretty common. Just like the concept of territorial males. So a farm is no different, factory or otherwise.. NathanLee 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument is that they're used both to stop fighting and to stop the mother rolling onto the piglets. But of course this ignores that it's overcrowding that causes the problems in the first place.

To the best of my knowledge, these crates are used only on factory farms. I've been looking for some evidence that they're used elsewhere, but so far haven't found anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, overcrowding aside: if it's a better solution than overcrowded and killing pigs then that's best of a bad situation.. Farms are never going to be as spaced out as nature. It's a trade off of density of animals vs providing livable/decent enough conditions.. But back to references: I'll find out some alternate names (my flatmate who grew up on a pig farm called them something else) as that might help sort out the issue with some more hits on the google-ma-tron. One of the links I posted in this discussion page (I realise it was a personal page, so not a great reference) talked about visiting farms where the animal had close to natural environments, but they still separated the sows during pregnancy and piglet rearing.. So it sounds like it's necessary anywhere where pregnant sows are likely to come across other sows/pigs.. So I think it's really just a case of the size of the enclosure and the restrictions it places (e.g. as you say an argument is for the "sow crushing piglets", which might happen a lot in nature.. who knows? Like the birds and more eggs than they need because some die/eaten etc). Or perhaps the intent..

But is this one activity really a good representation of the concept or intent of Industrialising the farming process? If, as I said, this is to be phased out soon enough: is that the death of industrialised agriculture? I'd say not.. As it's really just a continuation of the industrialisation process.. A refinement of it really. If we want to look at the term "factory" then the concept of an effective factory is quite different from 50 or 100 years ago as different considerations form part of the industrialisation process. e.g. giving a sh_t about workers versus just focussing entirely on the product.. Same with this article, and I think we need to focus more on that for the longevity of this article. Pigs in cages ain't going to represent it for very long.. NathanLee 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding fighting: "Limiting aggression is often given as justification for confining sows in gestation crates, yet antagonistic interactions remain a problem in stall housing systems. Studies have shown that confinement in individual stalls may lead to unsettled dominance relationships and high aggression levels.(114) These unresolved agonistic interactions are likely to cause stress(115) and worsen with successive pregnancies. Crated sows have been found to experience agonistic interactions up to three times more often than group-housed sows and cannot readily practice avoidance.(116) This same study found that stall-housed sows were more aggressive than group-housed sows by the fourth pregnancy.(117) Although aggression can be a welfare problem in group housing, it can be curtailed with responsible management and good practices. In stall housing, minimizing aggression is more difficult.(118)" [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

While they may be more agressive, they are limited in the damage they can do I guess. I'd say that "responsible management" links back to what the Vet group said that they support sensible practices that help.. E.g. confinement.. Anyhow, I think the linking of this picture/statement and concept is more to the linking with your and other activist's notion of "factory farms" and all the emotional arguments that follow. Perhaps that's the biggest argument for splitting up not only factory farming (can talk about the perception of what a factory farm is versus reality versus research on the matter). versus Intensive farming (concept of resources supplied etc) verus Industrial Agriculture (the concept of industrialisation of farming similar to manufacturing). What do you think about that then? Then there's no need to keep mashing them all together and finding links to try and say they're equivalent when they're talking different creatures really.. NathanLee 03:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Jav43 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the image of hogs in gestation crates is not intrinsicly representative of "factory farming"

See also list

I would question why there are companies listed in the "see also" list that appear to not be mentioned in any way in the article. Maple foods for instance has nothing on its page.. I would say this list should not be used as an unreferenced implication that these companies are factory farming organisations. This is about the concept of industrial practice in factory farming, not related to implementations thereof. I'd suggest a tidy up. Anyone got thoughts on this? NathanLee 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The two I added (Maple and Smithfields) are in the WPost article about gestation crates and I'm intending to add something about it. There's already something in the cutline of the first image. Secondly, the names on the list are huge well-known operators of factory farms. It's not clear what you mean by the distinction between concept and implementation in terms of this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by "implementation" I mean "individual instance of" factory farming e.g. "Farm number 27315 that does pig raising" versus "this is what factory farming is". While the two may be mentioned in the linked article: that article is not fixed in stone as integral to the wikipedia article. So as the link dies or is replaced by a newer/more up to date one the reason for it being in the article is lost.

I'd be a little cautious about the concept of "well known" without references (and the Maple page has no mention of it.. and even then: do we want references to run-of-the-mill practitioners of it on this page as "see also"?

Given "factory farm" is a bit of a loaded term (e.g. contentious because of political pressures) I wouldn't like to see the page used as a "name and shame" at the expense of referring to significant companies e.g. if there's no specific mention of the company in the body article.

E.g. if we have the page on industrial manufacture, I'd question whether it was good article design to name practitioners of the process unless they were a significant force in pioneering the practice. E.g. Ford motor company might be a good one for "modern automotive manufacture process" as they contributed significantly to it (e.g. the first).. I think the list would get out of control and doesn't really add to the content.. Now if we can get some references to how they've contributed to the concept: then I think they'd be worthy of mention in the body and in the see also.. Your thoughts? NathanLee 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First about use of the see also list:To some extent it is a place to park stuff that should be incorporated into the article but hasn't yet for one reason or another. Under this concept a finished article will have no see also list. Yet a fully complete article often is very long and some people like to have a ready list of related items. Most of these best go into one or more navigation boxes. Yet still sometimes some other related items are felt worth linking to. WAS 4.250 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Next:You ask about adding the links to wikipedia articles that give information on the nature and history of corporations whose behavior is identified by some as being described in this article. I thought it would be useful to include in this article some actual examples, so I looked up what wikipedia already has in this area, read the articles to make sure they had data that was relevant to this subject and put them in this see also list. Ideally, we will eventually be able to have a subsection dealing with these companies' behavior as it relates to this topic. Suppose it turns out that one of these companies is an example of a huge food multinational corp that does not match the claimed qualities and behavior and characteristics identified in this article (other than being a huge food multinational corp that is identified by some as being described in this article). I think that would be very relevant to this article, even more than if it did match. WAS 4.250 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So in conclusion, the point isn't to create a list, the point is to flesh out some relevant examples that illuminate the claims. Adding the items to see also is just a tiny useful first step towards that. WAS 4.250 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On your first point: there is no "finished article" in wikipedia is there? New information can always appear that could require a page to be edited. Using a section on the "live" portion is not what it is for I don't think. That's the talk area. I'm happy to move this stuff to the talk area as it will firstly clean up the article of the irrelevant see alsos and secondly put them in the appropriate spot for "work in progress".

I see no reason to link those companies as looking at those companies reveals no contributions to the concept of industrialising the farming process in any significant way. They weren't the first, nor the last, nor do they appear to have developed any specific processes related to this article's topic.

If a company has not contributed to the practices of Industrial Agriculture (factory farming) in some way: they're not really relevant to the ongoing life-cycle of an encyclopaedic article. I don't see how listing out piecemeal bits and pieces of companies that do industrial agriculture is at all relevant unless this happens to be the idea of using wikipedia as a soapbox for "name and shame". Particularly while this article is misnamed as it is (see other talk) to be the activist pet name for the process of "Industrial Agriculture". This is a subset of agriculture.. NathanLee 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

These are links to articles about companies and not links to companies. The articles I linked have content relevant to this article and are thus useful links for our readers as is without being incorporated into another section and so it would be inappropriate to censor them into the talk page under the excuse that they were works in progress as all wikipedia is forever a work in progress as you noted. WAS 4.250 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I understand they are links to the wikipedia pages :) the point I'm making remains the same. It's associating this article with those company articles for no real purpose. It's not "censoring" anything other than someone's vague concept of something they may possibly-somehow-one-day-potentially work into the article. The talk page is most certainly the best spot to put things if they are of no immediate relevance and some content is to be created for it. Stuff shouldn't disappear out of discussion pages even if archived the archiver should retain open topics into the new page I'd say. Placing them in there if they have no immediate (or discernible future) relevance is just cluttering up and can be (as I hinted) a POV as a "name and shame" list). There are countless activist sites that have lists of companies they regard as immoral or worthy of protest for various reasons.. But this page shouldn't seek to mirror those. If you can suggest how all those company names are involved in this page on a farming/agricultural technique/process then that'd justify their existence. But otherwise we either need a rather massive list that really doesn't add much useful encyclopaedic information to wikipedia or to this. NathanLee 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WAS's revert

WAS, WP:LEAD says that leads must include the topic's notable controversies. Schroeder's call for an end to factory farming, backed up by British scientists, certainly counts as a notable controversy. The first para of the lead gives no indication at all of what a controversial practise this is. Therefore, the second paragraph must.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have come here first rather than reverting then coming here. Oh well. I'll compose a reply. WAS 4.250 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have me at a disadvantage cuz you love to fight and I hate to fight and all you have to do is turn this into some long picky mess and I'll just walk away. Also the last time we got into such a thing, I kept getting edit conflicts so please give me time to fully reply. WAS 4.250 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I don't love to fight. I'm just willing to. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's deal with one thing at a time, ok? You added something that I thought was appropriate for the article but should eventually go in a section called politics or current status or some such, so I parked it in the notes as creating such a section with just that would be unbalanced. The lead section is to summarize the rest of the contents and the added sentence is a detail and not a summary. It summarizes nothing but instead is an example, a detail, a specific, a corroberating specific. Not a summary or an introduction. Does not belong in the lead. WAS 4.250 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I added information from the BSE sources in the text. Crum375 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

New name

Says you who just gave me two conflict edits :P haha

On SV's comment: Well that's why this article needs a proper name. Factory farming refers to a loaded term and we should clear that up with the use of the more correct term "Industrial Agriculture". Referring to process and concept rather than loaded phrase used predominantly by activist groups. As it stands we're lumping that all together which has an implicit POV attached. If someone's researching Industrialised Farming concepts they shouldn't be getting "factory farming" alone.

Factory farming = subset of the current state of Industrial Agriculture PLUS negative connotations NathanLee 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs additional articles and details about the actual real economies with its factories, corporations, trade in goods and services, contractual arragements, monopolies, lobbying, power stuctures, worker conditions, trade unions, conditions of employment, tools of the trade, business to business markets and models, business procedures and processes, financial structures. Correct names will follow correct information. Instead of fighting over a name, maybe add some sourced data? WAS 4.250 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The term factory farming if you do a search on google (not a definite thing of course) but look at the first couple of pages of results and the registered domains.. They're anti-factory farm sites. I don't see why there's such a push for a POV term against the acceptable to both sides Industrial Agriculture (which is a broader, more descriptive, less loaded term). Go to amazon also and search for both terms. 15 books for factory farming, 3700 odd for Industrial agriculture. That's got to indicate something in terms of reference-worthy books that use the term to describe this article's content! NathanLee 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post, BBC, and Reuters use the term "factory farming." It's not just activist websites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's ill defined as a result of the use, but as I've said: it's not used by the industry itself. Surely that counts for quite a large say in what something's called. If names used predominantly by opponents, sometimes by media but almost never by the industry itself that should preclude its use. Otherwise we'd have so many unflattering terms used as the primary article heading rather than just a small note that some people refer to them as.. Come on: you're the more experienced editor, what's the policy on referring to groups by names they themselves would not generally use. E.g. which of the following would be the more suitable choices for each set: gays/sodomites/faggots/pillow biters?, or churchies/biblethumpers/infidels/christians?, animal murderers/abattoir workers/degenerate bloodthirsty butchers?, sinners/baby killers/abortion clinic staff? All are widely used (unfortunately) in various circles, but in each case the least loaded and generally acceptable name to that group would be the best choice if you had to chooseNathanLee 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The term "factory farming" is a perjorative term and should not be used here to describe "industrial agriculture" -- it should only be used to describe the nature of the term "factory farming". Jav43 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A modern form of intensive farming

(moved) As for "a modern form of intensive farming," there is no pre-modern form of it as it relates to animals, and most of what people think of as factory farming relates to the industrialized reproduction and maintenance of animals, not carrots. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of the one shows it to be a subset of the definition of the other. But I put it there for article navigation purposes so maybe what we need are navigation boxes. Argiculture, food production, industrialization, whatever. WAS 4.250 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the point in having two articles (Intensive farming and Factory farming). We can include everything that's in the former in the latter, surely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Other way around if you're going to do that. Factory farming is a subset of intensive farming. Not the other way around. I doubt anyone will think of "factory farming" when they think of high rotation crop cycles.. Again: factory farming is an activist term, not one that should be swallowing up other actual non-loaded NPOV recognised terms.. NathanLee 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming is not an activist term. It is the term used by the Washington Post, the BBC, and Reuters in three of the articles we use as sources. It is the term most commonly used now for intensive farming and industrial agriculture. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the sources on this, Wikipedia seems to be the only publication making a distinction between factory farming and intensive farming, so we're engaged in original research. We need to merge the other article into this one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd added to this article what very little was there and not here, and redirected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, there are many cases of articles out there that refer to intensive farming without a single mention of "factory farms" e.g. [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,2059592,00.html[/url], or from the BBC [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/livingthingsenvironment/4foodandsustainabilityrev5.shtml[/url] "Intensive farming is concerned above all with productivity and uses a high level of inputs to achieve it. ". No mention of "factory" anywhere there. Google has hit after hit for sites that define intensive farming with no mention of factory farming anywhere.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanLee (talk • contribs) 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Nathan, of course not everyone who uses one word will, at the same time, use the other. The point is whether they are using the terms to mean different things. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why have you merged these without any proof that they are equivalent? I still think you should undo your changes as you have not justified the merging with no citable example. Having them used in similar area and then saying they're equivalent without a reference is original research wouldn't you say? The state/federal laws seem to talk about size.. That's got little to do with a process.. NathanLee 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to undo Mass edits and merging by SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin can you please stop with any merging or articles you are lumping under "factory farming". You're showing complete disrespect for the discussion area and discussions currently in progress and the contributions (in the correct manner) that others are trying to make. You're plowing on in and destroying the separation of topics. It appears that you are very much pushing a personal POV and disregarding the comments here. Please (as a sign of good faith and respect to the discussions here) revert your changes and restore the separation of the articles. i propose that Factory farming is not a descriptive/definitive article name for the things you are merging in here.

The reasons that factory farming is not a good name for this article (or the fields you are merging like crazy):

• I've raised the point that the sheer volume of references in book titles on amazon to "Industrial Agriculture" outweighs "factory farming" by 3,700 odd to 15 for factory farming.
• Factory farming is a term used by activists almost exclusively. It does not appear to be a term used by those actually in the field, which indicates a significant POV attached to that term
• intensive farming is a practice, Industrial agriculture is a field, factory farming is a name attached to certain notions of what animal farms (only animal farms) are like.
• Industrial Agriculture appears to be a NPOV title and is a broader term
• Intensive farming is NOT known always as factory farming. I have never heard the talk about intensive crop farming processes referred to as "factory farming". Nor have I heard it commonly used to describe intensive fishing as "factory farming", Intensive aquaculture is a term that might be appropriate though.

If you would like to create a separate article on the POV for why animal rights groups regard factory farming is evil: then by all means do so, but to merge Intensive farming/Industrial Agrigculture and to try and shoe horn it into a POV sounding term is reducing the impartiality of the articles. There is no rush! This is not a case of vandalism that needs immediate reversion (although your changes are looking like they need that treatment to restore things to a sensible state). :) We can discuss and there's no need to stomp all over the opinions that are in this discussion area.NathanLee 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am probably doing something wrong, but when I search "Industrial Agriculture" on Amazon I get 1,096 titles, and when I search for "Factory Farming" I get 1,182 titles. I still don't think this should be our selection criterion per my argument above, but I fail to find the "15 books on FF". Crum375 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We are engaging in original research by using these two terms differently. No one else does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me that factory farming = intensive farming = Industrial Agriculture. I'm not sure which google you're using, but mine doesn't find much to support your assertion that they're all the same thing. If you exclude activist (e.g. personal/non cite-able sites) then there's very little mention of factory farming in terms of book titles or scientific research. Regardless, can you put the other article back and abide by the concept of "discussion". It is a bit rude if nothing else to just bypass the discussion that was going on here and on the other page.. An example of intensive farming that I haven't come across as referred to as "factory farming" relates to plants. Intensive simply means lots of inputs to crank up outputs. Industrial Agriculture = application of industrialisation techniques to agriculture. Factory farm = term used by vegan sites to be honest. I think you're attempting to infect what should be at least 2 maybe 3 articles with a POV. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I can't see any evidence of good faith when you've gone off and bypassed the discussion forum and started mass merging. If you can please put things back to where they were prior to you discarding the discussion forum process.. Again: there is no rush, the two articles were quite happy existing and I think the equating all of these terms as equal is Original research and just mirroring a POV from activist sites to push a term not used by the industry themselves. NathanLee 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps activists in your circle of friends equate factory farming with industrial agriculture, SV, but industry folk would only use "factory farming" to speak derogatorily of a farm that engages in inhumane and abusive practices (if they use it at all), while simply using the term "good farm" to speak of industrial/intensive farming. Jav43 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples of "factory farming" being used by mainstream news organizations

Here are some examples of mainstream news organizations, in the UK and U.S., using the term factory farming:

• The Washington Post: "The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming." [11]
• CNN: "Scientists: factory farming drop could end mad cow": "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease." (based on a report from Reuters) [12]
• BBC: "In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy." [13]
• CBC: "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination" [14]
• British House of Commons: [15]

Mcleans: Nikiforuk, Andrew. "When Water Kills: Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming in Canada." Maclean's. 113:24 (June 12, 2000): 18-21.

The Ecologist: O'Brien, Tim. "Factory Farming and Human Health." The Ecologist. 31:5 (June 2001 supplement): 30-4, 58-9.

Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy: Spira, Henry. "Less Meat, Less Misery: Reforming Factory Farms." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. 11 (Spring 1996): 39-44.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Source request

We need a source for "Proponents of factory farming argue that it makes food production safer and more efficient ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We need (and asked for on here) a source that justified your massive merge frenzy, but have yet to receive one. Any reason why we shouldn't adopt a less activist term and make the distinction between the concept of a "factory farm" versus "intensive farming" NathanLee 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been given sources for the use of factory farm = industrial agriculture = intensive farming etc. You're just ignoring them. Here's another one. [16] As we've given you several links showing they're used interchangeably, could you please produce one source that says there is a distinction? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that all of your sources are from anti-agriculture activist organizations? Jav43 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farm definition by govt statutes

[url]http://www.wsn.org/factoryfarm/factfarmfactsheet.html[/url] Makes mention that "A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) or factory farm or large farming operation is defined by federal and state statute as a facility that contains 1,000 animal units. The calculation of animal units varies by type of animal. For dairy cattle, a facility that contains 700 milking and dry cows is considered a CAFO." It (as a private site) is not the definitive guide, but can we find the definition by law. That would back up the free dictionary definition of "large scale farming" or words to that affect. It may only refer to "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)" term, but another site (again a site suggests something similar, [url]http://www.factoryfarm.org/whatis/1.php[/url]). Maybe we just need some govt agency definitions of these things to settle this issue.. NathanLee 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to create distinctions where they don't exist, which is why you're getting confused. Reliable sources use all these terms, and they use them interchangeably to refer to industralized farming methods. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

And I say that you've blown away a separate article in your desire to merge a concept and a catch phrase.. Your article that talks of intensive farming and factory farming doesn't strictly mention that factory farming is the same as intensive farming. e.g. ""Time will tell if agricultural run-off was the source of E. coli contamination of the wells at Walkerton. However, you don't have to look long or too far to find examples of environmental damage caused by manure management from large livestock operations." The article header says factory farms to blame, there's a paper mentioned that is on Intensive farming techniques, but the idea I've talked about below is that factory farm is such an ill defined term that it can just mean "large", which is what the article is pointing the blame at. I'm not saying there's not overlap in the terms, believe me.. But I think we're talking definitions of things here so distinction is important. Intensive farming means farming that relys on external inputs to get more out of something than would be possible. That's got nothing that forces it to be the same as "Factory". Factory can mean lots of things, but in short it's activist terminology that's used in the media because it's a known term that gets attention. Factory farms may USE intensive farming practices and they may be an example of an Intensive farming practice. Would you say a 1 hectare block of crap dirt that has lots of fertiliser added to enable crops to grow is a factory farm? I wouldn't, but I'd say that's an example of intensive farming practices (e.g. lots of fertiliser, water etc required to get a return far beyond what would have grown). Perhaps that explains why I'm trying to push for a distinction. There's nothing particularly factory like when you start looking at the basics of what the "intensive farming" concept is.. NathanLee 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, if I may make a suggestion, all we really need are good reliable sources. Right now, we need one saying that proponents argue that FF is safer. Can you help with that? Thanks, Crum375 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one arguing for a safer title and a safer division of the articles. The merge was based on unsourced original research and no one has addressed the complaint that I made that this is a loaded/one sided term. If this is not in some way addressed I will be renaming the article to remove this point of view change. Factory farming is an activist term rather than one the industry uses and as such it is a POV held by one side only (and referenced by the media for sensationalist titles). The change to this and the merge was not backed by facts and appears to be contrary to my requests for evidence. That you need a quote to talk about FF safety is irrelevent when the other changes were made with no regard to this discussion. If people can find the time to do mass edits without consensus: they should find time to answer things on the discussion page (note the number of questions that have not been answered by SV, yet that user has plenty of time to do the merging and editing against both article discussion pages). If a source can not be found as to why the loaded POV term factory farm is preferential then I'll be renaming the page and restoring the changes. That I have persisted here to try and do things the proper way when you and SV have attempted to steamroll your POV does not indicate good faith or respect to others' opinions. The definition of what is "factory farm" may just mean "big" according to government agencies. NathanLee 09:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to stick to providing reliable sources. Much, if not all, of what you say is WP:OR. What we need is: "source X says Y. It is reliable and relevant. It should be in the article because of Z." Then we can address and discuss the specifics, such as how to present a neutral and balanced picture. Thanks, Crum375 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, rather than spending lots of time arguing about the title, why not help to produce research that leads to content? The title can always be argued about later. We need a source showing that proponents say factory-farmed food is safer, or that will have to be removed from the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that certain editors are deleting data they say is "unsourced" while simultaneously arguing for the inclusion of other data that is unsourced. Hypocrisy is not an appealing trait. Jav43 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By nature, a CAFO is industrial agriculture - and if you say that industrial agriculture and factory farming are the same, then to be consistent, you'd have to admit that a CAFO is "factory farming". Jav43 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Crops

Webster's New Millennium dictionary calls (factory farming) "a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility."

Where does crop production fit in this definition? --Dodo bird 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Crop production is part of "agriculture", and falls under "large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit". In addition, "the animals are kept indoors and restricted in mobility." So the definition covers both crops and animals. Crum375 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum375 - this it the point I've been making: the term "Factory farm" does not appear to have been used to describe crop production. If webster's attaches mention of animals, indoors and restriction of mobility: that voids the use of this term to be the all encompassing term the edits and merge have resulted. Unless you can find a reliable source that somehow voids webster's definition. As so far we only have mention of it as per what activists call things. I'll put this in a section presenting everything and then unless these are dealt with a revert and restore of the two articles is in order as this article is Original research and POV polluted.NathanLee 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Two examples: What is factory farming?, wisegeek.com.

Factory farming, America's Agriculture Authority. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That first site is essentially a blog quality of reliability site. It does not reference anything, and is just some random process for producing answers..

The second site is an unreferenced mirror of wikipedia's article. Try doing a search for key phrases (e.g. [17] states "Proponents, while they do not use the term factory farming, claim that this type of concentrated farming is a useful agricultural advance:". It sounds a little too much like the wikipedia article for my liking.. And is basically a copy of the wikipedia article on the topic. We can't refer to ourselves I'm afraid and this is the problem with your changes: they start to have a ripple effect of muddying up a term. I'd ask you again if you can restore the two articles until you find some evidence to back up your (At this stage) original research which has linked these pages NathanLee 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As Crum said, the definition points out "large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit" - crops are part of agriculture. It then goes on to say 'with blah' - this is simply a clarification of one aspect and not the complete definition of the term. Also, as the editor below points out, factory farming = industrial agriculture as the 2 terms are pretty much synonymous.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And as the encyclopaedia britannica disputes that:

System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible. The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.

You're trying to shoehorn a term around more than it generally refers to. You're making the assumption, it's not backed up and that's Original Research. SV's references are out (as one is a mirror of the WP article) NathanLee 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Chickens

Main article: chicken

In the United States, chickens were raised primarily on family farms until roughly 1960. Originally, the primary value in poultry keeping was eggs, and meat was considered a byproduct of egg production. Its supply was less than the demand, and poultry was expensive. Except in hot weather, eggs can be shipped and stored without refrigeration for some time before going bad; this was important in the days before widespread refrigeration.

Farm flocks tended to be small because the hens largely fed themselves through foraging, with some supplementation of grain, scraps, and waste products from other farm ventures. Such feedstuffs were in limited supply, especially in the winter, and this tended to regulate the size of the farm flocks. Soon after poultry keeping gained the attention of agricultural researchers (around 1896), improvements in nutrition and management made poultry keeping more profitable and businesslike.

Prior to about 1910, chicken was served primarily on special occasions or Sunday dinner. Poultry was shipped live or killed, plucked, and packed on ice (but not eviscerated). The "whole, ready-to-cook broiler" wasn't popular until the Fifties, when end-to-end refrigeration and sanitary practices gave consumers more confidence. Before this, poultry were often cleaned by the neighborhood butcher, though cleaning poultry at home was a commonplace kitchen skill.

Two kinds of poultry were generally used: broilers or "spring chickens;" young male chickens, a byproduct of the egg industry, which were sold when still young and tender (generally under 3 pounds live weight), and "stewing hens," also a byproduct of the egg industry, which were old hens past their prime for laying. ^[1]

The major milestone in 20th century poultry production was the discovery of vitamin D, which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round. Before this, chickens did not thrive during the winter (due to lack of sunlight), and egg production, incubation, and meat production in the off-season were all very difficult, making poultry a seasonal and expensive proposition. Year-round production lowered costs, especially for broilers.

At the same time, egg production was increased by scientific breeding. After a few false starts (such as the Maine Experiment Station's failure at improving egg production^[2], success was shown by Professor Dryden at the Oregon Experiment Station^[3].

Improvements in production and quality were accompanied by lower labor requirements. In the Thirties through the early Fifties, 1,500 hens was considered to be a full-time job for a farm family. In the late Fifties, egg prices had fallen so dramatically that farmers typically tripled the number of hens they kept, putting three hens into what had been a single-bird cage or converting their floor-confinement houses from a single deck of roosts to triple-decker roosts. Not long after this, prices fell still further and large numbers of egg farmers left the business.

Robert Plamondon^[4] reports that the last family chicken farm in his part of Oregon, Rex Farms, had 30,000 layers and survived into the Nineties. But the standard laying house of the current operators is around 125,000 hens.

This fall in profitability was accompanied by a general fall in prices to the consumer, allowing poultry and eggs to lose their status as luxury foods.

The vertical integration of the egg and poultry industries was a late development, occurring after all the major technological changes had been in place for years (including the development of modern broiler rearing techniques, the adoption of the Cornish Cross broiler, the use of laying cages, etc.).

By the late Fifties, poultry production had changed dramatically. Large farms and packing plants could grow birds by the tens of thousands. Chickens could be sent to slaughterhouses for butchering and processing into prepackaged commercial products to be frozen or shipped fresh to markets or wholesalers. Meat-type chickens currently grow to market weight in six to seven weeks whereas only fifty years ago it took three times as long.^[5] This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (and not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries). Once a meat consumed only occasionally, the common availability and lower cost has made chicken a common meat product within developed nations. Growing concerns over the cholesterol content of red meat in the 1980s and 1990s further resulted in increased consumption of chicken.

Today, eggs are produced on large egg ranches on which environmental parameters are well controlled. Chickens are exposed to artificial light cycles to stimulate egg production year-round. In addition, it is a common practice to induce molting through careful manipulation of light and the amount of food they receive in order to further increase egg size and production.

On average, a chicken lays one egg a day, but not on every day of the year. This varies with the breed and time of year. In 1900, average egg production was 83 eggs per hen per year. In 2000, it was well over 300. In the United States, laying hens are butchered after their second egg laying season. In Europe, they are generally butchered after a single season. The laying period begins when the hen is about 18-20 weeks old (depending on breed and season). Males of the egg-type breeds have little commercial value at any age, and all those not used for breeding (roughly fifty percent of all egg-type chickens) are killed soon after hatching. The old hens also have little commercial value. Thus, the main sources of poultry meat 100 years ago (spring chickens and stewing hens) have both been entirely supplanted by meat-type broiler chickens.

above copied from Chicken#Chickens in agriculture - WAS 4.250 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be cut way down and stuff from Chicken#Issues with mass production added. WAS 4.250 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List of sources and quotes found when searching for benefits

1. "Through seminars, workshops and demonstrations, Nkoma ADP staff taught Ester and the other members of her focus group modern farming practices like preparing fields, applying manure and planting in rows rather than scattering the seeds. Soon, group members reaped the benefits. Ester was able to increase her harvest to more than nine bags of maize per acre, which means her household has enough food each year."worldvision
2. "More than 40 years of research has yet to document a single case in which antibiotic use in food animals has caused human disease due to antibiotic resistance."cgfi
3. health benefits from pesticides used in industrial farming
4. overview of industrial agriculture and agribusiness with pros and cons

WAS 4.250 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears the major health benefit of industrial agriculture is the higher gross national product created by increased efficiencies. The higher GNP allows for better nutrition (no one starving is the initial health gain) and allocation of resources to other things like health care (the proportion of the population engaged in farming drops from most people to 5% or so). The health benefit of industrial agriculture is the health benefit of society having additional resources (wealth, money, products and services including educational and health). In short the health benefits are the natural consequences of wealth. But no, I did not find a quote that said so. WAS 4.250 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of POV bias, Rename and restoration of Intensive farming article

As a number of large scale changes including a merge were taken: I submit that this has resulted in Original research and a Point of view biased article.

1. The is evidence to suggest that the term "Factory Farm" is POV and an activist term that the media uses on occasion.

example: The washington post article referenced: [18] states:

The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming.

Points on this : the use of the term "Factory farm" in the article is tied to what animal welfare advocates' POV.

1. The term "factory farm" does not appear to have usage outside referring to animals. (there's no reference that links the name to crops, fishing. It appears attached to the concept of animals in cramped conditions on large scale farms) examples
2. Factory farming appears to be linked to "large" and little else by some definitions, making the term useless to describe small operations [19] and [20]
3. Animal and mobility restrictions resources: [21] (science term dictionary)

From the "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th edition"

factory farming (′fak·trē ′fär·miŋ) (agriculture) Raising livestock indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility.

So this is not sounding like the field of industrial agriculture and it is linked to livestock and extreme limited mobility.

1. Britannica links it to animals, animal rights activists

System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible. The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.

Nothing about crops, or that it is used by the farming industry itself.. It also links it somewhat to the USA, rather than the rest of the world.

Even activist sites place the restriction and link between the term "Factory farm" and animals, cramped conditions etc [22]

These factory farms are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). They emphasize high volume and profit with minimal regard for human health, safe food, the environment, humane treatment of animals, and the rural economy - in other words, factory farms are not sustainable. The definition of a factory farm varies from state to state; however, these industrial facilities share many of the following characteristics: Hundreds to thousands of animals (mainly cows, pigs, chickens or turkeys) confined tightly together and provided little or no access to sunlight, fresh air or room for natural movement. Some facilities produce millions of animals yearly. Public health problems, including the overuse of antibiotics and food borne illness. Liquid waste systems and "lagoons" to store raw manure. Buildings that confine animals indoors and control their environment. Mutilation of animals such as debeaking poultry, clipping pigs' tails and teeth, and docking cows' tails. The corporation that owns or controls the factory farm also owns the feed company, slaughterhouse, and final stages of production (referred to as vertical integration). Through contract growing, a remote corporation controls all aspects of raising the animals. The livestock owner does not manage the day-to-day operations of the facility. The farmer is left with the risk, debt payments on barns and facilities, waste, and dead animal disposal. A decrease in neighboring property values because of odor and water pollution.

This article [23] mentions

Through the campaign, the member groups of the CFFE worked to grow our numbers, trained highly skilled (and now seasoned) leaders, framed issues (such as the term “factory farm” for large-scale confined animal feeding operations), developed media and political contacts and allies, passed important policy initiatives and advanced others forward in the policy debate, stopped nearly 100 proposed factory farms in our states, and accomplished a host of other environment-protecting and grassroots power-building objectives.

In short: this attempt to create a synonym between "Industrial Agriculture", "Intensive farming" and the activist notion of "Factory farm" was not correct (which was why there was discussion going on, which was ignored and the changes blasted through anyhow). "factory farm" may be synonymous with "large confined animal feeding operations" (CAFO), but not the broader term of Industrial agriculture or the concept of intensive farming and as applied to non-meat related activities.

"Factory farming" means an activist tainted Point of View term that is restricted to large scale animal farms with animals in cramped, indoor conditions. While it may be synonymous with "farming" for some: that is probably a US version of farming. Industrial Agriculture is a broader term and "Factory farming" can refer to the notion of treating a farm as a factory[24] but Industrial Agriculture is a more neutral term that is frequently used (by both proponents and opponents). So to avoid Point of View infection of this article the previous title of "Industrial Agriculture" should be used over the term "factory farm" which as per the links appears to be loaded with other assumptions. There's nothing that says that an industrialised agricultural farm has to fit the narrower definition implied by factory farming.

1. Intensive farming is a process or a concept. It is simply characterised by requiring or using a high amount of inputs (e.g. capital, fertiliser, feed, chemicals, man power) in order to maximise crop or livestock returns.[25]. There are also terms like "semi-intensive farming"[26], and "low intensity" farming [27]. So I would say it deserves to be a standalone article given that it wouldn't make much sense to have the concept of "semi-intensive", "low intensity" but not "intensive". NathanLee 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the changes as SV has ignored the discussion going on here. The changes made are in the history, we can add them back if/when they are supported. Yes there was a bit of "Baby out with the bath water" but the information is still in the history and can be selectively added in as required. Next up I think we need to fix the title as I think I've shown that "factory farming" is not the appropriate term to apply to the other terms. Neutral POV title is needed. Suggest the discussed "Industrial Agriculture" which is a term understood by pro-and opponents NathanLee 17:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jav43 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan

Those edits were close to vandalism. The content you removed had nothing to do with the merge you're complaining about, because you left in the issue of crops anyway. Please add content (with sources); do not remove it.

Also, you're posting so much here and on people's talk pages, it's unlikely to be read. Less is more when it comes to talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, if you can't take the effort to participate or listen to requests to justify the massive edits then take some time. You can term it vandalism if you like, but I'm just resetting the page to where the discussion started and you ploughed a bunch of unsupported changes and merged another article. You had plenty of time to make a tonne of changes: but very little to participate. Can you now take some time to answer the issues with your changes. See my section above on why I reverted. I'm aware that the page is not perfect. That's why I've also talked about the need for a rename (refer to this discussion page if you missed that). But it is less polluted with your misconception (see my above reasons) of why you think "factory farm" is the one term to own them all.

To summarise my issues with the changes: it's original research to be saying "factory farm" holds identical meaning to "industrial agriculture" and "intensive farming". "Factory farming" has POV and is akin more to an activist notion than a field of agriculture.

Now I can go and remove the unsupported and conflicted POV edits and original research. But as you disagree you are quite likely to keep reverting (does that count as "removing others work"). As you have decided to ignore the discussion area there is not really any way for you to pay attention to the opinions of others on this article. If you can't do that: might I suggest you participate more and large scale edit/merge less.. NathanLee 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You've made 111 edits to articles overall, and whenever I've seen you edit, you're causing disruption. Look at the lead you added: "Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors [are they always indoors?] under conditions of extremely restricted mobility. [that is not all it is] The term, frequently used by animal welfare activists [but not only them, so why mention them and not everyone else who uses it?] refers a the [sic] specific technique [what specific technique? only one?] of intensive farming ..."

This isn't good writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then fix up the typo, you're attempting to justify your disruptive editing of my addition that doesn't warrant a revert. I was in the middle of making some changes which you stopped by reverting then threatening 3RR.. I now cannot fix anything because you have threatened that I am will be in violation of 3RR because I dared to edit an article you are appearing to try and own.

You accusation is a completely false and an unwarranted attack. Where's the daily conflict in my edits? Can you back up that claim of disruption? Also: 111 edits that have improved wikipedia are useful I would think: rather than 10,000,000 that can easily be called edit warring and POV shaping (reverts, threats of 3RR). This seems to happen with your edits quite often. A quick peruse of your talk history page (which you blank and archive almost constantly) indicates that your editing style is rather closer to disruptive than mine. How many editors have you clashed with Slim as it appears to be relevant to the discussion for some reason? Your attempt to bully anyone from attempting to contribute seems to be almost a hobby of yours. Might I suggest that you review your non-collaborative approach might result in less editwarring and disruptive behaviour on your part. The earliest revisions of your talk page appear to indicate why you are so quick to introduce POV into animal related articles [28]. Which is fine if you are able to be neutral, but the agressive attitude you show towards contributions that don't fit your POV are not suggesting anything positive about your contributions on this article. Why: just check up in this very discussion and you'll see that you've clashed and disrupted editors. NathanLee 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Find a source showing that intensive farming is not the same as factory farming. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim: the point is that i've been making is that since you are the one that made the edit to say that it is the same: the onus (responsibility) is on YOU to back that up.. Find me an reference that says oranges are not to be used as jet fuel. NathanLee 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Google definition search yeilds

• A system of farming with the aim to produce the maximum number of crops in a year with a high yield from the land available and to maintain a high stocking rate of livestock.www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/glossary.htm

• a method of farming which produces the largest amount of crops or meat possible from a particular area www.stepin.org/glossary.php

• Farms which cover small areas but which use either many people or a lot of capital (money). No land is wasted.geographyfieldwork.com/GeographyVocabulary7.htm

• farming that uses modern machinery/technology to grow vast quantities of produce.www.bridgemary.hants.sch.uk/folders/gcse_revision_guide/glossary/page_1.htm

• Intensive agriculture is an agricultural production system characterized by the significant use of inputs, and seeking to maximize the production. It is sometimes also called productivist agriculture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming WAS 4.250 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents. Nathan is obviously not a vandal. Factory farming does not equal intensive agriculture, and the negative connotation associated with the term "factory farming" is one reason not to use it in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia. Haber 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but repeatedly removing large areas of text without consensus can easily be seen as vandalism. The 2 terms are synonymous. 'Factory' = 'Industrial' (one is a part of the other), 'Farming' = 'Agriculture' - they mean the same thing. The only reason there are negative connotations with one term is because the overall reaction to the practice is a negative one.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is fallacious. Terms are not the sum of their component parts. Consider the term "silverware". Jav43 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If Nathan is a vandal, then I want more like him. He is clearly putting in a lot of work and trying to improve the article. You and SV should apologize to him. Haber 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jav43 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know enough about Wikipedia to but would like to bring in a third party editor to review SVs actions, accusations, threats and edits, etc... Do you know how this process is started? I would also suggest freezing the article until SVs hositlity has subsided. --Agrofe 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That might be useful. It would be good to resolve this without such action, though. SV is clearly outnumbered. Jav43 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of apologising for pointing out that the large amount of reverting that Nathan engaged in could be seen as vandalism - it is written in our policies that such actions can be seen as vandalism. That isn't me calling it vandalism, it is simply saying that SV isn't out of line saying that it could be seen as such. I do see his actions as disruptive though, as it is damaging to remove large amounts of work such as he did here.

SV does a huge amount to improve this encyclopedia and is one of the most respected editors on this site, any claims against her need to be very well backed up and not just yet another rant. Someone removing a large amount of work and being warned about it is not such a situation - it is simply following our policies.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't make you apologize, but you just did it again. What Nathan is doing is not "disruptive", and throwing these sorts of accusatory terms at a well-meaning casual contributor looks like bullying to me. Haber 02:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agrofe, here is an earlier version you approved of. Very few sources; lots of OR; no information or sources in the lead; and completely misleading information such as "According to the United States Department of Agriculture, ninety-eight percent of all farms in the United States are 'family farms'," but without mentioning how little, relative to their number, these farms produce compared to the big corporate producers.

If you feel the current version is unbalanced, then please do some research and add material. I have looked for sources that are pro-factory farming. They are hard to find, because even the owners tend not to defend it, beyond arguing that it produces cheap meat and crops. But perhaps you know of sources that I don't. But please add material; do not remove other people's work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agrofe is acting responsibly. He is not "removing work" any more than what SV has demonstrated is proper. Jav43 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(indents) LocalZuk: there was only a large amount of revision because SlimVirgin chose to charge on ahead rather than discussion. See Nathan's note to SlimVirgin about the mass changes. Which can also be regarded as vandalism since the requests to support the OR material have gone unanswered. If you look at the comment on my change ("revert to pre-massive merging by SlimVirgin. Refer to discussion page. Remove POV and original research"). SV then reverted ignoring the discussion page again. How is that respect worthy behaviour when there's been little evidence of respect for others by SlimVirgin? I was the one in the right in this case and was sticking to the policies. SV was not, so whether the person is well known or not: that is irrelevant if their actions are incorrect, disrespectful of others or overly abrasive. The large amount of conflict SV appears to stir up even just within this discussion forum doesn't seem too much like a constructive thing :at the same time as this. Willingness to fight and inability to listen is not a virtue. :)

SlimVirgin my friend: I have requested a number of times for you to support your additions. I'm not asking to be annoying: I'm asking because you still have not and we have what appears to be an OR broken article. I attempted to revert them so we'd all discuss (as the old page made less OR assumptions, but still needed fixing, hence my views and others on the title), you overrode that, then accused and made threats of 3RR policy violation (that you yourself are more in violation of the guidelines and recommendations as I informed you :deleted note to slimvirgin about 3RR). I had on numerous times asked you to contribute and to halt your massive rewrite and merge. You chose to ignore those attempts and pleas for you to join the discussion. I then did the revert pre-warned on your talk page and on this discussion page (only made large due to your ignoring the earlier requests and pointing out the POV and Original Research concerns.. ): you once again ignored the reasons and overrode it.

As it stands: you've altered the article to introduce original, unsupported research and yet you are protecting that from not only revision, but also from an attempt to fix up your additions to make them neutral and in line with the supported, cited references.

Trying to put the responsibility on someone else to disprove something which you added [29] when that has been asserted is unsupported is not the way it works. Without proof: it is your changes which are closer to vandalism, yes it is not blatant, but you are firstly changing the article dramatically to suit your POV and original research then ignoring polite requests to back it up, then when it is reverted you push it through again ignoring discussion as an option, then threatening and accusing with no justification other than saying you should not remove work from others (something which is an absurd thing to ask when OR has been pointed out)..

My changing the article header to remove Original research is not a revert, nor is it vandalism and it IS adding material and improving the article. There is no ban on removing material from wikipedia that is Original research, Point of view or misleading (which your edits have been) in fact my understanding is that that is encouraged. It's a tired old line, but please assume good faith and accept that your edits are not necessarily 100% correct nor 100% neutral. Mine aren't always going to be, no one's are always going to be..

You did attempt to back up some of your material using an potentially unreliable source/non-citable site and a mirror of wikipedia's page on factory farming: which is reason enough as to why this page has to be correct(the mirroring and muddying of things). But to then go and attempt to start an editing war when you have neglected any and all requests to back up the added material in this article is not good editor behaviour (I would think). As I've said: there was no rush, no need to plough on through, but either you were too busy editing to read the notes, or discussion page, or reversion comment directing you to the discussion page or you are unwilling to accept the polite collaborative behaviour myself and I would think your fellow wikipedians expect. If you have such high personal feelings about animal liberation and about the need to retain your POV/OR material: I'd suggest you take this page off your watchlist and refrain from editing it.

If there's the assumption against good faith that I'm "from the opposition":I'll declare now that I (or immediate family and friends) personally have no membership or affiliation with any activist or lobby groups (other than to donate to some non political environmental and homeless charities), or farming groups, or industry groups nor am I in any way involved with the agricultural industry (other than as an end consumer). So I'm really only here to try and improve wikipedia.

So I'd humbly recommend to SV that they tone down their approach to attempt a more harmonious balance between editorial needs and allowing others to contribute. NathanLee 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the title of this entry

Much of the debate about this entry seems to come down to the question of whether it should be titled "Factory farming" or "Industrial agriculture." A number of points should be clear: (1) the titles are almost interchangeable (factory = industrial, farming = agriculture); (2) if one title redirects to the other, then it doesn't matter which is most commonly used, or which has the most Google hits, since whichever title one prefers will take you to the same discussion, as it should; (3) the question of which title is preferable may be significant, but it is not crucial, and the entry does not stand or fall on this question.

Nevertheless, which is better? I don't believe it is a question of which is more popular, nor which is more neutral. But I do think one title is slightly more accurate than the other. The goals and techniques described in the entry amount to the reduction of agriculture to forms of quantification and calculation to be employed in the achievement of economies of scale in production. The development of these goals and techniques is essentially a matter of industrialisation, where industrialisation is a process occurring on a planetary scale and commencing with the industrial revolution. This process includes but is not limited to the rise of factories and factory methods. Now, it is possible to argue that a factory is nothing but an apparatus for the quantifiable and calculable application of industrial techniques to material, and thus that the title "Factory farming" is an apt and evocative description of the way in which plant and animal life is turned into material made available for such techniques. I would nevertheless argue that the rise of factories is one element within the overall process of industrialisation, and that the real point is the degree to which agriculture has been submitted to the entire process of industrialisation. Industrial agriculture is not only the process of turning living things into material to be "fabricated": more than simply the technicisation of agriculture, it is the entire system whereby technical innovation is devoted to the end of achieving economies of scale, and, in general, profit.

In short, the industrialisation of agriculture means more, and is more significant, than the technicisation of agriculture (which was always technical). For that reason I would argue that "Industrial agriculture" is a more general and yet more precisely accurate description of the process presently unfolding than "Factory farming." I recognise that this kind of argument does not necessarily appeal to editors, since it is based in analysis rather than sources, but I can only say that this is my view of the matter. I apologise also for the length of this comment, for which my only excuse is that it will probably be my sole contribution to this discussion of an extremely important entry. FNMF 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. WAS 4.250 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire 'industrial revolution' worked on the idea that economies of scale would be gained by using factories. The entire process was the factory.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is ignorant beyond words. WAS 4.250 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jav43 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new lead in paragraphs - Comments welcome

I would like to make the following edit (which has been reverted by SlimVirgin diff of my change to the intro and the many attempts to get discussion from SV most recent, finally a response indicating that it was not read then an attack. So as I don't believe SV has any desire to permit this (assumptions of good faith have seemed fruitless), nor inclination to allow anyone to contribute constructive input so I'm going to put my proposal here (like my other comments) because it appears my ability to edit this article is going to result in more reverts from SlimVirgin and the threat of 3RR violation as a way to prevent my editing this article further.. Rather than just letting me contribute to this article to fix the POV. The runaway changes that SV made to merge this page and Intensive Farming despite ongoing discussions (and my request that she hold off and use the discussion area) in both page's talk pages. It's slow (I've now had to re-iterate arguments from before, make this page, try to reason with SV etc etc), painful to have to do this and making my contributions difficult.. But I still think the discussion area is the best way to resolve this because I want wikipedia to have a non-biased, factual article (which currently it doesn't appear to have).

Moving on to content:

Proposed First paragraph

Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility.^[6]

Does anyone have issue with this as to why this is unacceptable as the first, succinct description (non OR view, it's backed up by the reference). I think it most accurately nails what the term "factory farm" has come to mean. The current first paragraph contains a statement which equates the term factory farming with numerous other terms which creates a false fact and is definitely Original Research. There's been a lot of information put forward on this discussion page, which was cited during my change, and then summarily reversed by SV before an unrelated personal attack accusing me of being disruptive for making this change rather than addressing what was wrong with this (SV mentioned that it was inappropriate to have a definition up front, this to me seems counter to what it SHOULD be). Perhaps if there's other conflicting proper sites that show conflicting views (e.g. I've been trying to find the US/State definitions of factory farms.. other definitions just list it as "large scale"). I would insert the word "generally" or "often", but that tends to be something that's frowned upon here.. Suggestions?

Would it benefit to make this refer also to the use of "factory farm" to refer to certain (large) size farms (as per all the legislation stuff.. Would still need a good reference to govt definitions).. Or something to indicate it is synonymous with much of the current state of cattle/livestock farming in the US? (as per britannica's definition and supported by the large number of media references) NathanLee 02:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the more generally used definition of the term "factory farming" simply relates to large farms with large animal counts. I don't think free space per animal is the deciding factor - although it certainly is a contributing factor. I would suggest preliminarily focusing on overall farm sizes. Jav43 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it does seem to have been used just to mean large. Particularly the articles that have mentioned factory farm permits.. They don't seem to be needed for small farms using similar techniques.. So I think for "factory farming" there's the extra meaning of the phrase when used by animal welfare/activists and also the one associated with the POV that they're unhappy, cramped type conditions of livestock.. I mean that's why we've been stuck having this conflict over what this page should be since it changed from "Industrial agriculture" to one with POV attached. So I think that's worthy of mentioning if we're talking just the term "Factory farming", so it can just refer to large AND referring to the (perceived or otherwise) "horror of cramped animals" type view that people have when the term is mentioned (sensationalist or emotive). As distinct from industrial agriculture (no POV or emotion generally appears to be attached) or intensive farming (which is just a concept of extra inputs to get more out of one patch of land, water or whatever). NathanLee 11:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

The term is frequently used by animal welfare activists^[7] and the media. It refers to a technique of intensive farming^[8], describing the large scale, confined industrialized production of livestock and poultry.

I've altered this from the reverted one to include a typo fix, some slight wording changes and reference to the media (although the claim that it was frequently used by activists is SUPPORTED by the britannica definition, which SV objected to despite this. I'm not sure what the complaint about using information from britannica's definition as it appears to be a good referable source). This is more correct than saying that factory farming IS intensive farming and IS industrial agriculture and IS intensive agriculture, because we have nothing to support that and nor does it have the same connotations or meanings. The reason it is useful to point out who generally uses this term is that if the farmers themselves don't appear to use the term: we should make that very clear from the start.

Third paragraph

A subset of industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture^[9], farms producing animals this way are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs),^[10] concentrated animal feeding operations,^[11] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs).^[12]

Notes:

• "subset" because we can find reference to support that the term "factory farm" forms part of the wider field of Industrial Agriculture, but nothing that suggests the entire Industrial Agriculture field is accurately represented by saying "factory farm". E.g. I've got references that link factory farms specifically to animals rather than crops.
• the link to concentrated animal feeding operations is made all over the place.. So that one is fine to link I think.

Would it worry people less if it was "a type of industrial agriculture" if the term "subset" appears to be a sticking point? I think we can all agree that it's a type of industrial agriculture (and thus a subset) but if it "un-mathematic-ifys" ;) it a bit maybe that'll cause less contention? Same meaning, just different way of saying it.. NathanLee 11:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Original text

The text that I was attempting to clean up.

Factory farming,^[13][14] also known as intensive farming,^[8] industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture,^[9] refers to the industrialized production of livestock, poultry, fish, and crops. Farms producing animals this way are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs),^[10] concentrated animal feeding operations,^[11] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs).^[12]

Reasons:

• while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming".
• no link that says any two of the terms "Factory farming", "intensive farming", "industrial agriculture" are (all encompassing) equivalent (so that is original research)
• the term is media and activist specific rather than one used by the farmers themselves, therefore POV laden. (numerous discussion material above in other sections of this discussion). If we're to use sensationalist/anti names of a subset of a field/area to represent the whole: then wikipedia needs a lot of page changes from neutral to POV group's names for them.
• if the page MUST be called factory farming: it should be clear what factory farming generally refers to. It's unlikely that a freerange feed lot that has hay and water shipped in to be referred to in the media or press as a "factory farm": but it is both industrialised agriculture AND intensive farming.
• this intro is a new addition (by SV) and as it is not backed up by citations that show the terms are equivalent and interchangeable (or applicable to crops/fishing/algae production/any number of other areas of agriculture) it should be rolled back (an unsuccessful venture as SV just keeps putting it back)

Thoughts?NathanLee 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you simply not reading any of the sources? For example: FACTORY FARMING = INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE, CNN. [30] That's just ONE example. Please read third-party sources, rather than writing so much about your own opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What a lousy news story! Did you see the credentials on those jokers that the reporter dredged up as sources? One guy had worked for the Ag Ministry, the second had "worked on BSE", and the third was a lobbyist. Come on! Even if you believe these stooges you're still only left with FACTORY FARMING = INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE OF CATTLE. Haber 01:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking the CNN story is talking two separate quotes. One's ""The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming," they said." and the other is ""The U.K. BSE inquiry also came to the conclusion that BSE was a product of intensive agriculture -- a 'recipe for disaster."'". It's talking about the intensive farming of cattle in factory farms.

Intensive farming encompasses the notion of factory farming is the point I'm trying to get across. NathanLee 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an analogy as the concept of bi-directional substitutability of terms seems to be the sticking point. Instead of "factory farming" think "boarding school", instead of "intensive farming" think "structured education" and instead of Industrial Agriculture think "learning process". It's true to say "boarding school" is a type of structured education, or uses the principles of structured education, but you can't say that Structured Education IS boarding school. Because standard schools are also structured education too. Boarding school is a type of learning process, but it isn't correct to say that the learning process is only boarding school.. We're talking subsets. It's safe to say factory farms are a subset of intensive farming. And they are certainly an example of industrial agriculture. But they are not equivalently swappable terms in both directions. NathanLee 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone knows what you mean. Good luck. Haber 02:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Kudos on inserting an actual definition of "factory farming"/"industrial agriculture" into the article. It's been sorely needed for a long time. Jav43 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the changes NathanLee introduced in the lead are not conformant with the sources we cite. It would be better, in my opinion, to introduce changes one at a time, instead of in bulk. Crum375 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum375 can you back that up? Your revert of this again with no specifics appears to be just edit warring rather than using the discussion area and is not backed up. I've explained how the changes are relevant, there's been no attempt to answer the charge of OR and my changes remove that OR. I don't see any new evidence to warrant your tag team reverting other than to continue an edit war. Can you please revert your changes and either add new material or point out specifically where you find my suggested changes in error. How are they "not conformant"?

As explained: the revision you reverted to IS not backed up by the source, the new version does not make those OR claims that the terms are equivalent, sticking instead to what we CAN say. NathanLee 07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee's edits are correct. Jav43 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples of mainstream use of "factory farming"

In case this list of examples gets lost among the very long posts here, it's worth repeating. The terms FF, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are used interchangeably.

• The Washington Post: "The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming." [31]
• CNN: "Scientists: factory farming drop could end mad cow": "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease." (based on a report from Reuters) [32]
• BBC: "In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy." [33]
• CBC: "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination" [34]
• British House of Commons: [35]
• Mcleans: Nikiforuk, Andrew. "When Water Kills: Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming in Canada." Maclean's. 113:24 (June 12, 2000): 18-21.
• The Ecologist: O'Brien, Tim. "Factory Farming and Human Health." The Ecologist. 31:5 (June 2001 supplement): 30-4, 58-9.
• Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy: Spira, Henry. "Less Meat, Less Misery: Reforming Factory Farms." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. 11 (Spring 1996): 39-44.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this issue in any detail but my first impulse is to agree with NathanLee that these terms are not synonymous since 'industrial agriculture' usually includes monocrop cultivation as well as confined animal rearing ('factory farming'). I will go and have a look at some sources. --Coroebus 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Google scholar search first hit: L Horrigan, RS Lawrence, P Walker - Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002 "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture" classifies "Industrial animal production...commonly called factory farms" as a subset of "Industrial Agriculture". --Coroebus 12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a useful reference. PDF available from: here

Despite this inefficiency, livestock diets have become higher in grains and lower in grasses. The grain raised to supply feedlots (cattle) and factory farms (chickens, hogs, veal calves) is grown in intensive monocultures that stretch over thousands of acres, leading to more chemical use and exacerbating attendant problems (e.g., pesticide resistance in insects, and pollution of surface waters and aquifers by herbicides and insecticides).

It makes a distinction between the term "feed lot" for cattle, "factory farm" for poultry, pigs, veal etc.. But I think enough other sources have referred to "factory farm" to mean animals/confined conditions etc..

It also supports the notion that Industrialised agriculture is wider than "factory farms" as it talks about crops/monocultures but also talks of the concept of regarding the farm as a factory (not the same as saying Industrial agriculture IS factory farming).

The Union of Concerned Scientists (1) said that industrial agriculture views the farm as a factory with “inputs” (such as pesticides, feed, fertilizer, and fuel) and “outputs” (corn, chickens, and so forth). The goal is to increase yield (such as bushels per acre) and decrease costs of production, usually by exploiting economies of scale. Industrial agriculture depends on expensive inputs from off the farm (e.g., pesticides and fertilizer), many of which generate wastes that harm the environment; it uses large quantities of nonrenewable fossil fuels; and it tends toward concentration of production, driving out small producers and undermining rural communities.

Good find.. NathanLee 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one:

In recent decades, however, industrial agriculture has increasingly separated animals from the land. More and more meat production is occurring in concentrated operations commonly called factory farms.

So we've got "monoculture" style Industrial agriculture being the current trend on the plant side, factory farms/feedlots on the animal production side. I guess "monoculture intensive crop practices" would describe the current plant equivalent of factory farming (for US typical Industrial agriculture). NathanLee 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Intensive farming article redirects here

Intensive farming redirects to Factory farming. I came a little bit late to this move but it appears to me that the encyclopedia has been damaged by a hasty decision. Fortunately we can correct it. Comments? Haber 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: this is wrong and should be corrected. Jav43 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: factory farming, industrial agricutlure, family farming, organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture, indigenous agriculture, etc... can all be intensive farming.--Agrofe 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of family farming being intensive farming and organinc agriculture? Reliable sources use factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive farming synonymously, as opposed to family farming and organic farming, and we have to stick to what sources say, even if you think they are wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Any farm owned by a family that engages in intensive organic agriculture production. There are huge numbers of examples. I could name names of individuals I know who fall into this category, but that would be pointless. Your sources are not scholarly peer-reviewed articles. I would put much more credence on them if they were. I am unwilling to place great weight on media or propoganda sources. Jav43 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles thrown together by a newspaper reporter and approved by their editor are "good enough" for many purposes but we all know newspapers get stuff wrong all the time. A newpaper article is not a "reliable source" for claims that are contradicted by scholarly peer-reviewed articles. That's the fact. Policy edits that say otherwise are insupportable and efforts to put newspapers on a par with expert sources drive away experts. Wikipedia is not mediocre-pedia. We strive for excellence. We are already more accurate than newspapers. Let's keep moving in the right direction. WAS 4.250 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

SV are you back to "family farming" being mutually exclusive of "intensive agriculture". Listen: this notion that the two are exclusive is just activist rubbish and makes no sense on any level. Example: most of the agriculture in Australia. We don't have the widespread commercially owned farms, most are family run and owned. Yet there are piggeries, chicken and livestock farms that rely on more than just the food lying around the ground (e.g. intensive farming). Easy example #2: intensive means lots of inputs to boost productivity? e.g. fertiliser and piped water. Do you think that all farms owned by families do not use fertiliser or irrigation to grow crops? There's an example of intensive farming owned by a family. NathanLee 01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ok when I get some time I'm going to reinstate Intensive agriculture. Haber 03:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming v. intensive farming

The issue of the title is separate from the issue of the writing. The way it's written now is a dog's breakfast. It contradicts itself. Even the lead contradicts itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to decide:

1. Do you want to include crops in this article, yes or no? Currently you first say no, and then you include them.

2. Do you want this article to be called factory farming or intensive farming?

Then

3. We can tweak the writing to accommodate. You can't change the writing first.

And

4. You must source all your edits, including images. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I have restored the last self-consistent version. And we must have some rational decision about the contents. What is this article about? What do we name it? What goes in it? As of now, it was totally inconsistent with itself before I restored it. Crum375 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I also want to put in a plea for good writing, regardless of the title, or POV, or anything else. There's no need for poor writing and lack of clarity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What contradicted itself? The version that Crum just reverted was very much better than the version we see right now. Jav43 23:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the Original research has been removed in the version I've put up. Unless you have a source (as requested multiple times) that somehow counteracts the evidence presented that shows the terms are NOT equivalent then you should leave this one up as it makes no un-justified claims and is all completely referenced.

As for whether it is a dog's breakfast: I wonder why that might be? Could it be the attempt to shove POV and unsupported assertions that factory farming refers to all the other terms (which were separate articles). If you want to talk about the factory farming POV then it is a separate article to the concept of industrial agriculture AND intensive farming. Hence my pleas (ignored) to stop, slow down and discuss. Accusations of vandalism when I attempted to reset the article appear to warrant an apology SV/crum375 as you perhaps now see what a mess you've made this article trying to push POV and OR lifted from animal rights.. wait.. not even supported by animal lib sites. Can you examine the arguments (lengthy though they be) and see why there is a significant difference between the terms and why "factory farm" is an entirely inappropriate term to be pushing over the top of the other ones? There should be two or three articles: "factory farming" refering just to the notion of factory farms, "Industrial Agriculture" as per how is was kind of before and "intensive farming" - just restore the article that was called "intensive farming". Factory farming has POV attached (as per my changes to the lead in. If you're going to force the page into "factory farming" then that needs to be made clear and neutral. NathanLee 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As some of many examples, the Schroeder and the British scientists statement calling for an end to 'factory farming', contradicted the statement that it is 'frequently used by the media and activists', since we refer to mainstream politicians (Schroeder) and scientists. Also, it is implying that when people say 'factory farming' they don't mean 'intesive agriculture', yet the sources we provide clearly equate the two (e.g. here). The previous version to mine also eliminated the Schroeder reference. Crum375 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the terms in the same article or even the same sentence does not mean two terms are equal. It's a one way, subset relationship.. Again: Factory farming is a type of Industrial Agriculture. It uses Intensive farming practices.. That's all verifiable, referenced etc.. You assertion that they are all the same is Original research.. Full stop. NathanLee 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this clearly equates the terms:

"United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease."[36] (my emphasis)

If you claim that one is a subset of the other, that would be your own OR interpretation - I don't see any logical way to read this but as equivalent terms. Crum375 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Using dicta in a newspaper article to prove your point is about the WORST possible source verification around. Jav43 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Using CNN and Reuters as a source to determine the accepted usage of public terminology is quite reasonable, as notability of a source is important also. If we has some obscure scientist writing a very complex and profound scientific paper, it wouldn't be as important a source on public terminology as respected mainstream media sources. Crum375 00:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum, firstly no one's debating that the term "factory farm" is a term that's not used. It is. I agree it is a term that's used. So does Jav43 I believe. But if you claim that the sentence in that article links the two phrases to be equivalent to each other then it doesn't.. You can even say they are two different requests if you like. Saying that you need to move away from X and stop Y. If you assert that X is linked to Y then the best you can do (still incorrect really) is say that Y is a type or subset of X. Really moving away from is a different concept to stopping. Does the sentence make sense if you say that factory farming is a subset or type of intensive farming? Yes. Is it fair to say the terms are interchangable? No. If the sentence had said "We recommend a stop to factory farming therefore that means all intensive farming will stop (as factory farming is the only form of intensive farming)". But factory farms can disappear and you'll still have monoculture crop farming relying on fertiliser, irrigation and mechanical tilling (e.g. intensive farming)..

So Intensive farming is a wider concept. Are you familiar with the mathematical concepts of sets? As in sets, subsets, union, difference etc.. As I think that's the area that myself and jav43 are thinking in terms of that you're missing our point. We can establish evidence to suggest that factory farming forms part of the set of things that makes up "Industrial agriculture" or "agriculture that uses intensive farming". But we cannot find evidence to suggest that industrial agriculture is identical to intensive farming is factory farming. That's the OR part, and if you've got something that says they're completely interchangeable terms from a site we can reference (the only ones that SV came up with were this article itself and a private answering site that may have just ripped it off wikipedia too). That defines the term "original research" and is a dangerous pollution of terms that should not stay sitting in the article regardless of whether crops are out of scope for an article on factory farm (they are: but given the response to any attempts by jav and myself to edit (or indeed revert the massive merging) the article to correct this: a tag team revert against the discussion evidence) you've made it rather difficult to get this article knocked into shape. NathanLee 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but despite all your words, I still don't see how reading that sentence to mean that one is a subset of the other, or that they are not simple equivalents of each other, is anything but your own interpretation, i.e. OR. Crum375 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum: I can't put it too much more simpler or too many more ways. Cat is an animal. True? Is it fair to say animal is cat (or animals are all cats). No. Easy proof: a dog. Factory farm is a loaded term that as per the britannica encyclopaedia (a source I think you will have to agree knows a lot more about encyclopaedia writing than you, I, SV or jav43) says refers to industrial agriculture with a bunch of conditions on it.. If you put conditions on something that means you NARROW the field to which that can then encompass (e.g. you shrink the set). Factory farm is a term that refers to livestock. That narrows it down from livestock, fish and crops. Therefore: outside your set of things which are able to be called "Factory farm" are agriculture that involves crops and fish. Therefore: to use the term "Factory farm" refers to a subset of industrial agriculture. THEREFORE it is not able to be interchanged as a term for the larger set of things. THEREFORE the terms are not equivalent. Ditto for "intensive farming": there's intensive farming of animals and intensive farming of crops. Crops are not animals, therefore the set of what is able to be called "intensive farming" is larger than the range allowed by "Factory farming" terminology.. If you don't see how this works, then this argument is beyond your comprehension skills (as it depends on notions of sets etc) and that's where the sticking point is and will continue to be unless the notion of sets is sorted out.. NathanLee 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to the same issue on the thread below. Crum375 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion : Let's add, not delete.

May I suggest that we agree to have different articles edited by different sides of this little edit war and each side in the edit war agree not delete anything the other side puts on "their" article, but can add stuff, but if its deleted let it stay deleted for now. Then we can compare the different articles to see what is better and what is worse. This could be done on a subpage, but I think we can do it at Factory farming (Slim and friends get to "own" it), Intensive farming (Slim and friends let it alone and don't keep making it a redirect), Industrial agriculture (starts with the non-slim version of this article that is being edit wared between). I would hope we could all borrow from each other and eventually wind up with a way to agree to merge common items and perhaps wind up with three good articles or one good article depending on whatever consensus evolves over time. I think the main thing is to get on with the writing of sourced content. Slim deleted good stuff at Intensive farming and slim's opponets deleted good stuff slim added to this article. Let's add, not delete. WAS 4.250 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What did I delete that was good, WAS. Please show me. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

I can agree to having two articles (factory and intensive) but not three. That would be ridiculous. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: this should never have been shoehorned (I've used the term god knows how many times) into one article that is a POV laden term. We need 3 pages it seems. Factory farming, Industrial Agriculture and Intensive farming.. This was pointed out in the discussions on both pages prior to moving had SV bothered to read them before pushing through her incorrect OR changes. Despite god knows how many posts on the discussion forum pointing this out. This is why I suggested, then did the revert because the current page is a dog's breakfast.. NathanLee 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need two-three articles. Jav43 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started the process. Everybody, please only edit the articles that are "yours" (for now only, eventually we will have to come to a consensus). Add data, don't revert war. And steal good stuff from each other. WAS 4.250 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WAS, you're engaged in OR. Factory farming and industrial agriculture are used interchangeably by the sources, as is intensive farming. I can see an argument for having intensive farming separate if you want to focus on crops in that one, but there's no argument for separating factory farming and industrial agriculture. If you want to say they are different, produce a source. I've produced sources for all my points so far; I am waiting to see any of you do the same. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

SV as this has been stated many times before: there's no source that says that factory farming means the same as any of those sources. It may be a subset and that's a safe assumption from the usage in articles, but it is not equivalent. E.g. apple is a fruit, but is fruit an apple? No. John is a person, but person is not john. You have not provided a source to say that the terms are interchangable. The links you provided were not referrable sites and one was a wikipedia rip of this page. Again: it was you making the merge and the assertion that the terms are equivalent: prove it. That's the way it works, not making some unsupported allegation and asking for a source that proves otherwise. My example above: prove that oranges are not able to be used as jet fuel. It's going to be impossible for you to find a source that proves that statement is wrong because it's unsupported OR with no proof against either.. NathanLee 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, here is the CNN/Reuter article, where I have replaced the terms:

Scientists: X drop could end mad cow. LONDON (Reuters) -- United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from Y, saying the end of X was the only way to kill mad cow disease.

Now can you explain to me how anyone could read this simple heading and sentence without the understanding that X=Y? Crum375 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no implication that X=Y and Y=X. Replace X with "Sausage eating" and y with "clown terrorism". The sentence is perfectly valid as the sentence implies no relationship between X and Y. Only that the scientists are warning people away from one and to stop the other. e.g. Move away from "this endless querying", stop trying to find "proof in this one sentence". :P NathanLee 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not following. If X is not Y, then that sentence with that title would not make sense. Crum375 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum: look at what the title says: X means mad cow end. then the second part of the sentence says the same thing. Drop X means mad cow end. Header is just the second half of the sentence again. Y is a separate thing altogether.. NathanLee 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, if as you say "Y is a separate thing altogether", what does Y mean? How would any reasonable reader understand it? Why would any reasonable writer write it if it's "a separate thing altogether"? I think it's clear to any reasonably person reading this, that X=Y - there is no other logical way to interpret it. Crum375 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(back)Crum: Just read the headline, then read the sentence. The headline can be "Fred says hello", the sentence in the body can be "John eats an apple, while fred says hello". That is EXACTLY the same as your example from the article. I really can't spend or think of another way to explain what is just too simple to come up with another way to say it. If the headline is X.. Just lump the whole thing to be a concept X. Then you have a sentence which says something different (Y) and joins this with saying the exact same thing as X.. e.g. headline = X, sentence = Y and then X. Y is completely unrelated, can be completely unrelated.. IS unrelated by the sentence. What you are trying to argue is that if two things are in a sentence together then they are equivalent.. which is absurd. Try covering up the first half of the sentence in teh first paragraph. Do you now see that the title and the uncovered part are IDENTICAL. So no new information. Now cover up the title and read the sentence. Is there anything that says they are equivalent? No. It's a run on sentence. That is, two different things jammed into the same sentence. It's your brain that's imagining something saying they're the same. NathanLee 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I tried to explain several times, a reasonable writer (and I suspect Reuter only has reasonable writers) wouldn't say "X drop could end mad cow ... scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from Y, saying the end of X was the only way to kill mad cow disease", unless X=Y. If Y is not X, than that sentence would not make sense. Crum375 03:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about X='using carcasses as cattle feed', and Y='factory farming', where I think we can agree that X is a subset of Y, but not identical with Y:

Scientists: 'using carcasses as cattle feed' drop could end mad cow. LONDON (Reuters) -- United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from 'factory farming', saying the end of 'using carcasses as cattle feed' was the only way to kill mad cow disease.

Ungainly wording yes, but quite meaningful. --Coroebus 11:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your example defines the actual terms as being different, whereas in our real case the X and Y are simply 'factory farming' and 'intensive agriculture', which to an average reader mean the same thing, so there is no other way to interpret it than that they are used synonymously. Crum375 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That is entirely circular reasoning. Your X and Y example was intended to establish that the terms had to be the same because of the sentence structure they were embedded in. I have demonstrated, as you have conceded, that this sentence structure is consistent with X and Y being different. Therefore, your example does not establish that they mean the same thing, and your argument comes back down to you asserting that they are the same. --Coroebus 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Clearly the article is not directly saying "X is Y", it is only conveying it in the way it is worded. My point has been all along that any reasonable person reading it can only understand it to mean that X = Y. Your example with the carcasses is different because it uses words that clearly mean different things to everyone, whereas in the case in point the terms 'factory farming' and 'intensive agriculture' mean the same thing to an average reader, and their usage in the article just confirms it. Crum375 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that does make your argument circular because you are basically saying that this sentence establishes that the two expressions are the same because they are the same! I would request that you engage with some of the examples provided which draw explicit distinction between the terms. --Coroebus 14:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"The concept ‘industrial agriculture’ does not refer to large-scale and specialised factory-farming. Instead, it is here used to designate farming that depends at least partially on external supply of inputs (e.g. seeds, fertiliser, veterinary services) and on markets, infrastructure, etc. since consumption of its produce mainly takes place outside the farm itself."

The European Journal of Development Research "Myths about Agriculture, Obstacles to Solving the African Food Crisis" Holmén (2006).

"Firstly, just under 80% of respondents expressed opposition to intensive farming practices, such as factory farming..."

UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Complementarities and conflicts between farming and incomers to the countryside in England and Wales" 2000.

"Industrial agriculture is characterized as capital and resource intensive, large-scale, high yielding, and mechanized with monocultural cropping systems directed to local, national, and international markets."

Jarosz (2000), "Understanding agri-food networks as social relations", Agriculture and Human Values.

"Just 10 years ago, only a handful of farms in Wisconsin met the definition of "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" (CAFO) - or, in environmental circles, a factory farm."

Capital Times (Madison, WI) January 22, 2002.

"A factory farm is often defined as one with 1,000 or more animals..."

The Associated Press State & Local Wire December 7, 2001.

"To counter the pollution caused by factory farms, the EPA proposed changes to the definition of "concentrated animal feeding operations" to include a larger number of such facilities and bring them under the auspices of the Clean Water Act."

Environmental Laboratory Washington Report January 18, 2001.

"This exemption also may protect factory farms, which are, by definition, confinement operations. Some factory farm confinement practices are illegal in other parts of the world, such as the European community, due to their cruelty."

Capital Times (Madison, WI.) June 8, 2000.

"Mark Anthony, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said 'factory farm' is purely a political term. It's a neat little phrase used by opponents of our largest farms and it's used, ironically, against family farms that are large. It's a term manufactured by political opposition to generate a negative response. It is polemical in its use....Richard Sahli, an attorney who has worked closely with groups opposing Buckeye expansions, defines factory farm in environmental terms. Do it on the potential to be a nuisance and an environmental threat, which relates to waste materials, he said. He prefers the Environmental Protection Agency standards, which require livestock farms with more than 1,000 animal units (1,000 beef cattle, 2,500 hogs or 100,000 chickens) to have permits and stronger standards for waste management."

Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) July 26, 1998.

"...he's not aware of a definition in Ohio of what constitutes an industry-sized farm for the purpose of regulation. I guarantee it's a very, very difficult issue to get a handle on what the definition is of a factory farm, Finan said. One measure is the EPA requirement that any farm with more than 1,000 animal units must have an environmental permit to operate.

Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) March 10, 1998.

"...focus on the ways industrial agriculture (and factory farms in particular) harm and abuse billions of animals each year."

U.S. Catholic March 1, 2007.

"...much like the factory farms and other industrial agriculture..."

The Globe and Mail (Canada) September 21, 2002.

To really mix things up, here's the OED:

Factory...6. attrib. (sense 5)...factory farm orig. U.S., a farm organized on industrial lines; hence factory farmer, -farming... ...

1890 A. MARSHALL Princ. Econ. I. IV. xi. 351 Our knowledge..would be much increased..if some private persons,..or co-operative associations, would make a few careful experiments of what have been called ‘*Factory farms’.

1926 19th Cent. June 825 Factory-farms..can be multiplied or spread widely enough to affect the whole of British agriculture.

1952 Economist 7 June 657/1 The operators of the huge western factory farms..resist the rule that no more than 160 acres of a single owner's land can be supplied with federally financed water. Ibid. This so-called ‘160-acre limitation’..is still applied when new lands are irrigated, but *factory farmers, particularly in Texas and California, have been trying..to get Congress to repeal it.

1964 New Statesman 30 Oct. 649/1 Boycott factory farm food?.. Boycott factory farmers?.. The essential thing is to amend the Protection of Animals Act (1911) to cover *factory-farming techinques. 1968 Ibid. 5 Jan. 10/3 Under conditions of intensive ‘factory’ farming, a lot of animals did suffer from true infections. 1968 M. PYKE Food & Society v. 63 It is fashionable to sneer at intensive methods of livestock production; they are called ‘factory farming’.

... intensive...5. a. Econ. Applied to methods of cultivation, fishery, etc., which increase the productiveness of a given area: opposed to extensive in which the area of production is extended.

1832 CHALMERS Pol. Econ. x. 324 The removal..of the tithes, gives scope both to a more extensive and a more intensive agriculture. 1865 Times 15 Apr., Ruin stares in the face the occupier whose farm premises are inadequate to the requirements of an ‘intensive cultivation’. 1889 Nature 3 Oct. 558/2 The necessity for increased food productions calls for intensive methods. 1899 19th Cent. No. 264. 300 There is little probability of their escaping from being caught..on account of the intensive fishery.

--Coroebus 10:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning to slimvirgin and crum375

You appear to be revert-warring against consensus. Please refrain from undoing justified changes to put a supported view in the lead paragraphs. You have repeatedly failed to produce evidence that backs up the claim of equivalent terms. SV: you are an editor and supposedly experienced, please show respect for the facts presented, the majority support for the change, assume good faith and either provide references that show equivalence (set-wise) of the terms or else leave the less OR infected version as it is. Reverting is not showing any new evidence other than your ability to back up your view in the discussion and a lack of respect for everyone else contributing. Given we have a bunch in favour it is you and crum who are disrupting and interfering with proposed changes that meet wikipedia expected standards. The other version does not. NathanLee 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Again.. SV and crum375 seem to be tag team reverting against evidence on here, how exactly is what you are doing anything but vandalism?? I (and others) have been more than patient on this matter, you've shown no good intention, just a desire to push original research into an article and thus damage the factual nature.. NathanLee 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Three entries, one talk page, plus two comments

Although I agree with the intention behind WAS's suggestion to develop three different entries for industrial agriculture, factory farming, and intensive agriculture, I think using one talk page for all three will rapidly become unwieldy. I can't see that such a procedure can work for very long.

In relation to my earlier comment that industrial agriculture and factory farming are nearly interchangeable terms, clearly that is not the case if factory farming is defined as "the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility." With such a definition factory farming is clearly only one aspect of industrial agriculture.

In relation to the definition of industrial agriculture: the definition as it currently stands essentially describes it as agriculture devoted to achieving economies of scale in production. Although this is true, I think the issue is slightly more complex: if it is accepted that one goal of a corporation such as Monsanto is to actually control a very large proportion if not the entirety of food markets, then this objective, while still a matter of increasing profits, is also about manufacturing a situation of global control that is insusceptible to competition, rather than simply increasing profit. Certain genetic strategies employed by such corporations can be interpreted in this light. Such attempts to achieve monopoly domination don't seem quite the same as simply achieving economies of scale, even if in the end they are strategies devoted to ensuring long-term profitability. FNMF 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I ran into this issue on Horizontal gene transfer. "Factory Farming" in no way encompasses all that is entailed in the industrialization of the production of biological entities. WAS 4.250 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested in my view - I would say that Slim and Crum are right that historically 'factory farming' has been used as something of a synonym for industrial agriculture (e.g. see OED definition and quotes) but I would agree with NathanLee and others that it is probably more often used nowadays to refer to intensive confined animal rearing as a subset of industrial agriculture (e.g. see my quotes above). Therefore I would favour having two articles, one of industrial and intensive agriculture, the other on 'factory farming' as restricted to animal rearing (but with a referring to industrial agriculture as a possible alternative meaning). I do not think we should be assigning ownership of articles to people as an effective fork. --Coroebus 11:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So by the sounds of it the factory farm article should just have a clarification or definition of what's generally referred to as "factory farm" (e.g. if there's specific information about the term or its definition) and then the body of the material on the overall process is held in "Industrial agriculture". NathanLee 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was suggesting that Factory farming could be an expansion of the animal section of Industrial agriculture since it is inevitable that there will be some animal rights issues addressed in the former, while the latter will probably have more of a focus on environmental criticisms which apply to both animals and crop cultivation. --Coroebus 13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustive look through the linked references to support my change to the header

SV and crum375 have asserted that factory farm/intensive farming, industrial agriculture are synonymous and completely interchangable.. So looking through all the references in the article. The terms are sometimes used in the same article (even in the same sentence in one article) we haven't yet had anything that shows the terms are anything other than a type of the other..

• The CNN article doesn't use them interchangably [37], it calls for a move away from intensive and a stop to factory farming. It would have said stop to both if they were the same thing. You can stop factory farms and still be moving away from intensive farming is about all you can glean from that..
• britannica and the sci-tech dictionary says it applies to animal farming as per cramped conditions [38],
• this one supports the notion that the term means livestock [39],
• this one refers to concentrated animal feeding operations [40] no mention of "factory farm" anywhere,
• this one [41] does not mention the term factory farm,
• webster's dictionary backs up the indoors/livestock definition [42],
• this article [43] talks specifically about cows..

On and on through the list.. Even if we go to activist sites on factory farming: I haven't come across any that assert that the terms are interchangable. Sure: factory farming IS industrial agriculture and it IS using intensive farming techniques (or is a type of intensive farming). But that just means it "is a type of", or "is a subset of". English use of the word "is" isn't the same as mathematical =. a = b means b=a. But in English a is b doesn't also mean that b is a.

Nothing to back up the claims in the referred links or anything I can find (other than mirrors of wikipedia's mistaken statements.. which is why it is important we do NOT have this definition sitting up there and infecting the common vernacular of agricultural terms), thus: it is original research and has no place on wikipedia. Might I add:

• Even the PETA link on factory farming (completely un-admissable I would say given PETA are a pro-vegan, anti every type of farming site, and not exactly known for their fact based statements e.g. "meat causes impotence", "your daddy murders chickens") mentions only animals [44].

So, does this settle the arguments that SV and Crum375 have about wanting the term "Factory farm" to be synonymous with the other terms? No mention of crops, and 3 different dictionary/encyclopaedic entries that suggest there's a link to cramped livestock.. Yet Industrial agriculture definitely includes monoculture crop planting, and intensive farming definitely definitely refers to using fertiliser and irrigation and mechanised ploughing etc..[45]

So unless there's any new evidence: I suggest we move past this and get on with splitting up the articles and back to supportable definitions/synonyms. This has all been a pretty big drain of time, good will and patience that has damaged the accuracy of the information on here, not improved it (although I guess at least this has been exhaustively debated now.. and has firmed up sources/supporting arguments etc). Any thoughts on this? I'm not wanting to be dictatorial on this: just presenting the evidence.. NathanLee 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jav43 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. WAS 4.250 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An article for every POV

Isn't this what is known as a POV Fork? Ag articles all over WP (not just these three) have been mauled. See also Sustainable agriculture. Haber 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the articles should all be neutral, but the concept of factory farming refers to a certain subset of Industrial agriculture.. Perhaps it doesn't warrant a page all of its own.. Because: as you say that can be thought of as a POV fork rather than just treating it as a subsection of the broader page. Does factory farm deserve a page all by itself? Hrm.. It definitely should NOT be the replacement page for Industrial agriculture or intensive farming.. It should probably defer a bunch of coverage to the Industrial agriculture or intensive farming pages rather than duplicating material for what is a subset of the other concepts.. NathanLee 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor quality writing

Wow, what a mess. The current lead is terrible. Why has it changed from a well structured set of paragraphs to series of poorly thought out sentences? It is currently representing only one view of what 'Factory Farming' is - some have expressed that factory farming and industrial agriculture are the same thing and have provided sources to back it up (such as the CNN source, which despite your attempts at analysis, and your ignoring of our reliable source guidelines, is a reliable source that is written in such a way as to se the 2 terms synonmymously - any analysis more than simply reading is as it is written is OR), yet we only have 'Factory farming is a subset...' and 'describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility'.

I would say that use of the CNN passage to establish the equivalence of the terms is quite probably the crappest argument I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and the repeated attempts to rely on it brazen Humpty Dumptyism with the quotes as mere props. Fortunately for you there is the far superior OED source that says "factory farm...a farm organized on industrial lines". --Coroebus 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to point out is that the intro only covers one POV - that the term is a subset. There are those who see it differntly (including myself) who have shown sources to support that the terms are synonymous. I'm not trying to say that the article should be written one way or the other - just that both views should be represented properly.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm trying to say that the evidence that they are synonymous is pretty much absent - apart from the OED quote I haven't seen any other evidence that stands up to even a cursory glance. On the other hand there is some pretty compelling evidence of it being used as non-synonymous. But I do agree that at the very least the intro needs to spell out the different uses to avoid confusion. --Coroebus 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Further down the page we have statements such as 'According to Faison:' being changed to 'The animals are better off, according to Faison:' which is a change from a encyclopedic intro to a poorly thought out line.

Futher, we have now had the image removed from the intro and placed down at the bottom of the article. Why? A representitive image of the practices so vividly described in the intro is appropriate is it not? The intro states that animals are kept in strict confinement, so why not have such an image in to lead? -Localzuk^(talk) 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We already went through the discussion of the image. The discussion is on this talk page. Jav43 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, the first 3 paragraphs (if you can call them that) start off talking about the practice, then the term, then the practice. This is a terrible mess. I propose that we go back to the old layout and work slowly from there - proposing each change bit by bit.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just improve the writing style, then, without removing content? Jav43 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Again the suggestion to put it back to the changes by SV that made it the mess in the first place. I changed those sentences to make it less Original research. I'm not saying they're perfect, but they are at least factual and making no original research claims.. Which is preferable to what was there. NathanLee 01:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

American v. British spelling

I noticed that a few recent modifications changed American spellings to British spellings. Is there some general wikipedia standard regarding spelling choice? If not, we should probably adopt one spelling method or the other, just to be consistent. Jav43 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was Australian spelling I was correcting as part of that.. But same spelling for British/Canadian/South African/Indian/New Zealand English spelling I guess. Don't know that there's any consensus on this.. Those words are either US spelling or "rest of the world" English I guess.. My personal view is to go with the one that applies to most variations of English (in the absence of a wikipedia mechanism to put individual English variations in e.g. Jail/Gaol, colour/color etc). Is there a tag to put the US alternative spellings in..? 89.168.20.5 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care overmuch, although I don't know many of the actual words for British English (i.e. Jail->Gaol, Trunk->Boot, etc). There ought to be a general wikipedia policy on point, if there isn't already. Jav43 18:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I found the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English; http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/nubio/view.php?id=151 Jav43 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reworded to take out those words.. What do you think? NathanLee 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked a few more.. If we work around the our/or type words I think we're ok for US/other variations.. Just be conscious when using favour/favor, odour/odor, colour/color, stuff that ends in -ize when it's spelt -ise generally.. And we'll be fine and within the guidelines without any trouble.. NathanLee 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues: Public health concerns

Why does "public health concerns" have its own section? Shouldn't that section be incorporated into the "arguments against" side of the debate-style outline (unless we're removing the debate-style outline, section-by-section). Jav43 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Industrial agriculture, opening paragraph

At the moment the opening says that industrial agriculture's methods involve technology (modern machinery) and science (modern medicine and genetic technology). Obviously this doesn't make much sense, since genetic technology is a technology and not just a science. But it indicates a more general issue, which is: precisely for phenomena such as industrial agriculture, the distinction between science and technology no longer really holds. The pressure to innovate in these fields means that what formerly passed for scientific investigation is now entirely submitted to the needs of technological and industrial innovation. It would be better to say: "Industrial agriculture's methods are technoscientific (including innovation in agricultural machinery and genetic technology) and economic (involving techniques for achieving economies of scale in production as well as the invention of new markets for consumption)." FNMF 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted accordingly. Also, added "intellectual property rights to genetic information" as an economic method. This is key in the sense that without establishing these legal/economic rights on a worldwide basis a great deal of recent innovation in industrial agriculture would not be possible. Only because corporations can establish and count on such rights can they pursue the strategies they devise. FNMF 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

International tags..?

I noticed that there are other language versions that appear to be ones for the other articles.. e.g. intensive agriculture and industrial agriculture..

Anyone got some insane many language skills that can check they're correct? NathanLee 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead which SV has reinstated is a much more well rounded summary of the article. Please do not remove information from the intro, as it is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and the prior version was far from this.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you not been paying any attention to the dicussion: it is Original research.. It is not supported.. If anything is vandalism it is this repeat of reversion despite numerous changes. SV: I don't really know how many more ways you need to have it pointed out that your opinion is not backed up. Continual reversion over a more accurate lead is just wasting time. For the umpteenth time: either present evidence that backs up the equivalency of the terms (and take the time to read the discussion page) or I'm afraid there's no other conclusion that you're edit warring and disruptive. I'm not just throwing around the terms either like some do: there's been rational, backed up, consensus on the conclusion that your page was broken. If you can't see the merit in the extensive work people have had to go through to show you that your edit is incorrect (see my above section on "Exhaustive.. " which goes through nearly every reference cited on the page. Nothing in it supports your statements. Thus: they needed fixing. NathanLee 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, the CNN/Reuters clearly uses Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture interchangeably. We've gone through that quite a few times above, and I don't see any other reasonable way to read that article. I do not see any source that specifically says that there is a distinction between Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture or Intensive Farming. The ILO source does not use the term Factory Farming (which includes crops), and is specifically for concentrated confined animals only, which is exactly how we present it. Some sources refer to the animal aspect of Factory Farming, but there are clearly others that refer to both animals and crops, e.g. Webster's New Millenium says FF is "a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility" (my emphasis), and of course agriculture includes crops. So while some sources (and animal rights groups) focus on the animals, other sources include crops, and I have yet to see a single reliable source that specifically excludes crops (i.e. by saying "FF does not include crops", or "FF is for animals only"). I think the reason is simple: animal rights groups, by their very nature, focus on animals, and therefore tend to ignore the crops aspects of FF, and some sources seem to focus on the animal rights groups and Mad Cow, etc. But our article cannot be tailored to animal rights groups or Mad Cow only; we should follow the general and broad application of FF in the published literature, which clearly includes both crops and animals. Crum375 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you paying any attention to what's been said or not? Clearly you haven't read the rebuttal to that (quite frankly idiotic) claim (as was said by another user). That CNN article does not use them interchangeably, nor do any of the articles cited on this page. Again: if you can't read the discussion page that mentions this (scroll back up two or three sections to the one about exhaustive). If you have no new evidence: can I suggest you stop wasting time and effort having to explain things to you again. You put forward another ridiculous argument that because something mentions "Agriculture" and then says it applies to animal production agriculture: that it then must mean crops too.. I really don't get your logic skills: is English your first language as perhaps that explains the missing of the nuance (if you can call it a nuance).. How can a type of agriculture to do with animals kept indoors also magically refer to crops which are firstly not animals and not indoors. What specific article are you referring to that talks of factory farming in such magic broad terms as to fit your definition.. We've got two dictionary and britannica that disagrees with you.. So it'd better be a good reference to override those.. This is just seeming more and more like beating a dead horse and taking up time and energy that I'd rather spend on improving the article. Not arguing for the 50th time on why you should stop reverting articles to the original research. Why exactly couldn't you have put some of this critical review into the massive alteration of the article to prevent the original research in the first place? Rather than trying your hardest to keep it there? Your/SV's view isn't even shared by animal welfare activists (check PETA's description or countless others). NathanLee 04:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead doesn't refer to crops. Please at least read what you're removing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, you completely missed my point. The lead you are trying to include does not provide a well rounded summary of all major aspects of the article. It has also taken many comments to get you all to realise that the quality of the writing you are adding is lower than what was there. As SV says, add material, do not delete well sourced material merely because you don't agree with it.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Nathan's version is better. It contains a well-referenced set of definitions, while SV's version uses only dicta from newspaper articles. Nathan's version properly doesn't talk about growth hormones or antibiotics, which don't characterize "industrial agriculture" or "factory farming", while SV's version says that such things are iconic of factory farming. SV's version cites a number of propaganda-based activist websites, which clearly are not verifiable sources, while Nathan's version moves away from such problems. Looking at the whole, Nathan's version is much better. If you object to his sentence structure or the like, then *fix that* without removing his text. Jav43 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Add, don't remove

If anyone feels the lead needs more positive material, by all means add it, but do not remove well-referenced factual material. Please see WP:LEAD. Leads should briefly describe the topic's notable controversies. The BSE thing is certainly that, as is the chancellor of Germany calling for an end to factory farming. It would be absurd to leave that out of the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The various editors involved with this page have an honest editorial difference of opinion on:

1. the definition of "factory farming"
2. which version is the better "well rounded summary of the article"
3. the reletive importance of BSE versus say, avian flu, artificial genetic manipulation, agribusiness political lobbying, e.coli, etc.
4. the the relative importance of a political leader's remark versus say a scientist's scientific study and conclusion or an economist's peer reviewed analysis or an agribusiness spokesperson comment. WAS 4.250 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if reverting between two versions is the best way to handle this honest editorial difference of opinion. WAS 4.250 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part did you think was OR, as a matter of interest? Your edit summary didn't say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The bit that was altered. Really SV: if you can't read the discussion page: leave the editing to those who can. Again, since you can't seem to get it via comments on your talk page, comments in the change history, discussion in this talk page or by reading the articles you claim supports your assertions: The term "factory farm" is not interchangable with "Intensive farming", "industrial agriculture". As above: none of the articles show anything other than it is a type of the others. Crop farming does not get called factory farming. Britannica/websters etc talk about confinement and ANIMAL farming. NathanLee 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one deleting good and referenced material from the lead, Slimvirgin. The article needs a definition of terms: the lead provides one. Also, citing propaganda-based activist websites does not a well-referenced article create.Jav43 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than reverting, thereby removing a large amount of referenced material that summarises the article better, why not add the bits about antibiotics and the like and definition of terms to this version? Regardless of what *you* think of the references to newsmedia, they are reliable sources according to our policies. Removing them is not helping.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dicta is not a reference. Sorry. Dicta doesn't count. If you had any training in research-based professions, you'd know that. Jav43 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, I'll turn your question back on you, Localzuk. Why didn't you add whatever it is you think is "good" rather than deleting/reverting Nathan's version? Come on, stop the hypocrisy. Jav43 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also: Localzuk: do you realise that references were ADDED. By reverting you've removed references to superb 100% citable sources AND based on an incorrect assumption: the articles are still referenced. I'm not sure how you're justifying this? YOU removed good referenced material and put back unreferenced claims. NathanLee 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dicta? Sorry, I don't understand that terminology. And the reason I didn't add what you have added is that I don't think it adds anything good to the article, so I reverted to the last good version.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about research methods without knowing the first thing is sad. Dicta is statements that are made to explain or enhance, but that aren't the actual point. Dicta isn't a good source for a citation. The point made by the article/source is what you should cite. Jav43 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jav43, can you point us to the relevant Wikipedia policy that addresses the 'dicta' rule? Crum375 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually admitting that you don't know the first thing about serious research? :P It doesn't matter whether there's a Wikipedia policy. Any decent researcher should know what to use as a source and what doesn't qualify. Jav43 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jav43, perhaps this is part of our problem here. First, please try to remain civil - it will make collaboration much easier. For example, try to focus on the issues, not the editors involved. Second, you seem to think there are some kind of sourcing rules, 'dicta' being an example, that we need to follow, that are not part of Wikipedia policy, and that "[a]ny decent researcher should know what to use as a source and what doesn't qualify". I suggest you read our WP:V, WP:NOR sourcing policies, summarized in WP:ATT. These are the rules we need to adhere to - we cannot ignore them, or invent new ones as we go. Once we all sing from the same page, we can hopefully move forward. Thanks, Crum375 13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't any of that, we can cite wikipedia policies til the cow's come home (or in this case: get shunted to a more cramped feeding cage): the important one is Original Research. Can you please provide any evidence to counter the mass of evidence we've provided to show that the page you revert to all the time (the current one that's locked in place) is not original research. To be honest: civil means showing respect for others' editing and to not keep reverting without reason. The overwhelming push by wikipedia is to back up and reference any claims made. We've shown at this stage that the new page is a better article from an accuracy point of view.. This debate is pretty thin on justification on your side and continues to be while you tell others to read the policies while you flagrantly ignore them yourself to keep this POV in the article. You are the only ones circumventing or inventing new rules. The new page makes no claims in the lead that aren't verifiable. SV's one does. NathanLee 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would actually like to hear Jav43 respond to my point about not inventing new policies on the fly, as he seems to be doing. But responding to your message above, can you show me one specific example of WP:OR in the current version? (and please - make it just one so we can stay focused) Crum375 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you not just read the exhaustive list or here or perhaps even the section on proposed new lead where I specifically replied to you in both those last ones.. But you went silent again and did not provide the requested evidence.

If you can't focus enough to read replies specifically to you on the discussion page: how many times do the same sets of complaints need to be raised before you read them? I'll say it again to summarise the above links AGAIN, SV's version makes claims that terms are the same: they aren't and no reference backs that. The SV version is wrong in the body too because it mentions crops (merged from intensive agriculture) and no article exists to link crop farming with factory farming.. It disagrees with the dictionary and encyclopaedic entries referenced in the newer version on that regard. Hence "original" (e.g. SV's ) research. NathanLee 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement with a specific source is not OR. I suggest you read WP:OR carefully. If you are referring to the equivalence between FF and Intensive Farming etc., all that is well sourced, for example here. I have yet to see a single source that says that FF is not equivalent to Intensive Farming. In general, I think the current version is extensively and carefully sourced, and I have yet to see a single example of OR in it. Crum375 14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see how that source (headline is the only bit to use the phrase "factory farming", then it talks about a report on groundwater and intensive farming", then there is some discussion as to whether an e.coli outbreak was due to manure runoff) fails to establish the point you are trying to make then I think we will need outside input here. Request for mediation anyone? --Coroebus 15:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the cbc article Crum just referenced is useless. It only mentioned "factory farming" in the headline (if you know anything about newspaper articles, you'd know that the headline usually isn't written by the journalist) and draws no actual correlation between "factory farming" and "intensive agriculture". Crum & Co. are grasping at straws in a last-ditch attempt to throw their POV into this article. It's just tiring. Jav43 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The part that we've got issue with (as per the original research policy) is nothing to do with disagreement with a single source.. It's this bit:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position

. The lead and article was changed to remove the extrapolation of the definition to include the unsupported equivalency and extension to include crops (for which there's no reference.. including the one you cite which makes no such claim). The personal position by a couple of you that they are identical terms: is only that: A personal position. Your justification is the same as saying that any two terms used in a sentence are the same and interchangable. "A move away from intensive farming and an end to factory farming": does not mean the two terms are the same. It's even referring to two different groups saying that as I recall.. Your reference from above: [46] mentions factory farming in the heading.. And refers to a report on intensive farming, but the part about "Miller points to larger livestock farms in Ontario, which produce more manure or agricultural run-off, and, hence, a higher risk of groundwater contamination.". Doesn't this support the assertion that the term "factory farm" is referring only to large animal farms? We know intensive farming can include more (crops, fish etc) therefore the BEST we can assume is that factory farm is a subset or type of intensive farming practice. The same can't be said the other way around. NathanLee 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy isn't exhaustive and isn't meant to be exhaustive. I'm not attempting to "invent new policy". I'm simply restating the obvious... which I wouldn't need to do if the editors here could actually use decent research techniques. Jav43 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a question for WAS. This talk page has reached the point of being almost useless, because of long irrelevant posts, and posts designed to insult rather than just reply. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's useless because you completely ignore it. This argument to "add, don't remove" is firstly stupid because if you look at it: there's nothing been removed. It's a rewording to make it match the references. It actually has more references (ones to britannica and other dictionaries) to support the material. Having Original research (the claims of equivalency of terms was not backed up in ANY of the articles.. Had you paid attention to the discussion you'd see that I'd shown that) is much much worse than having a LEAD that might need an extra sentence or something to round it off. If you value adding material so much, why have you reverted to undo numerous fixes just because you don't like that someone has improved the article? Removing added Original Research or POV is not something anyone should be reverting, let alone an admin. NathanLee 00:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What we need here is a solution

What we need here is a solution. Both sides have given their evidence and neither side agrees with the other side's evidence. Both sides claim to be following policy and accuse the other side of not following policy. Perhaps a straw poll on which of the two contending versions is best could be a solution. What do others think? WAS 4.250 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WAS, could you answer the question, please, about what in this version [47] you feel is OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first two paragraphs and the image of the sows are OR and should not be in the lead. Jav43 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the dispute is already resolved. SV, Crum, and Localzuk are on one side; WAS, Nathan, myself, and Agrofe are on the other -- BUT SV, Crum, and Localzuk cite propaganda-based activist websites rather than decent sources, and at least SV has admitted bias against modern agricultural practices. The "correct" outcome here is obvious. (By the way, how on earth did the image of the sows get back in the lead again?)

Oh, also, the talk page is working perfectly. Of course, SV/Crum/Localzuk's refusal to actually read it doesn't work so well. Advice: read without bias. Jav43 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is filled with self gratifying nonsense by a couple of editors who are trying to hide their own biases by providing too much info in response to very simple questions. Nearly every time one of SV/Crum/myself have asked a question we have received long diatribes which barely provide an answer and would be more appropriate if a politician had said them. This isn't an attack against any editors, it is an analysis of why we haven't got anywhere with coming to a compromise. We need to stop with the OTT answers and keep things succint. I suggest that we simply archive the page so far and start again - going over each paragraph bit by bit.

The introductory paragraph is not original research, it is well sourced. The image is also sourced, how is this original research?

Also, regardless of your beliefs of things being 'correct', this site works on verifiability. Everything in the lead is verifiable and sourced.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What part of "there is no evidence in ANY of the articles cited to suggest the terms are interchangeable" is so hard to understand? I'll say AGAIN:See my section on exhaustive coverage of the referenced articles.. I've shown there is NOTHING in ANY of them to support SV's lead. The one I changed it to makes NO original claims, cites MORE sources (and doesn't throw away any sources) and is thus infinitely preferable. If you say it doesn't cover the article: I'd like to see you add things to make that so. SV's version is plain WRONG. Inability to contribute or be able to understand extensively supported arguments is not a reason to keep reverting. If SV/crum375/localzuk can't understand why something needs to be fixed if it contains unsupported claims: then there's no reason why the article should suffer because of that. If the discussion page has gotten lengthy it's because we've got a couple of animal rights activists who need to create a biased page.. That's the only explanation at this stage. The article has also had other fixes which have been thrown away (e.g. the english variation neutral changes, spelling mistakes etc). If these editors were doing this from an IP address they'd be banned from editing, but for some reason we're tolerating their un-supported ignorant and lazy "I'll just keep reverting til I win despite all evidence against me" approach to this article. NathanLee 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk, if you read this discussion page, you'd find out why you're wrong: this version is OR and the image is improper - as we all agreed long, long ago. Jav43 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you'll find that *you* think it is OR and *you* think the image is improper. Myself, SV and Crum all think it is proper and not OR...-Localzuk^(talk) 08:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also WAS - a poll isn't a good way to solve this. Every attempt to explain why the article is OR has been made. SV/Crum375/LocalZuk are just unable to either bother reading the arguments, or accept that SV may have polluted this article with incorrect statements (which has been shown god knows how many times on this page). Why are we putting up with such disruptive vandalism of this page in the face of one side providing extensive evidence and the other not contributing, not reading the arguments and edit warring.. NathanLee 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected page status

Rather than propogate questionable information, I think the entire lead section of this article should be removed while the article is protected. Jav43 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That isn't how page protection works. It stays as it is until we come to a compromise.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you reverted (against requests for you lot to participate in the discussion) just before it got blocked so that the incorrect Original research about equivalent terms can stay there a bit longer.. I wouldn't mind so much if any of the 3 of you gave any reason for doing so.. But edit warring rather than reading or providing evidence seems to be all the proof you need. It's also a less referenced one too by the way: no link to britannica etc NathanLee 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not funny, I requested page protection... Normal when there is a revert war. Please read the notice at the top - protection isn't a promotion of that version.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not meant to be used to protect your own revert. Why revert if there's no promotion involved? Why did you not simply request a protection. So yes: it is funny. Had you requested the protection without having immediately been the one doing the reverting you might have a leg to stand on and have shown good faith and professionalism. What you did was once again ignore the discussion mechanism, revert a bunch of changes to damage the article with OR again.. Then abuse the page protection mechanism to make it stick up while you lot once again fail to provide any evidence or reason for SV's misleading lead to stay there. NathanLee 01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So true. Localzuk's actions were completely unethical. The page should at least be placed in a neutral state if it is to remain locked for a time. Jav43 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I made my revert at 18:05 and the page was protected at 19:05, I don't think there is anything wrong with what I did - stop reading into things. Your over the top 'this is a conspiracy' behaviour is not helping - all it does is make me think that you aren't here to improve but to push your own agenda and to troll.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Localzuk: true you reverted (18:05), but then 5 minutes later (18:11) you requested a block. It took some admin a little under an hour to respond to your request. Response time of admins is irrelevant really, but 5 minutes between your reverting and starting the block process doesn't exactly support your idea that it's an agenda to call you out on perhaps using block as a technique to enforce your POV.. NathanLee 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me a liar and *still* not getting to the point of how we can compromise on this issue. Being at work and heavily overloaded with work I don't have time to create a possible compromise version.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call you a liar: my apologies if it read that way: you just implied you had given more time between your revert and the block request. Your actions were 5 minutes apart.

The "compromise" is that if you/crum/SV want to contribute on this (including right to revert) then your argument needs to be backed by evidence and the talk page used a bit more. As currently it's based on nothing other than some POV e.g "the lead sucks" equivalent and a desire to keep the page from being changed at all costs (pissing others off, trampling over arguments/convention/requests to discuss, personal attacks, unhelpful editing).

None of the excuses given appear to have a basis or justification: it is referenced, despite claims: editors can (and are encouraged) to remove/change/add material that improves the article ("don't remove" was one argument for reverting the additions of others strangely), it is less original research, agrees more with other primary sources.. So I still can't see why this debate is there other than to somehow appease a couple of people's unjustified reverting against consensus and backed up reasoning. The improvement process keeps getting knocked back every time you lot decide to revert and stall for more time with no evidence to support it. Might I suggest that if you move beyond clinging to this need to have the original research in the page: we can stop wasting time on you so far fallacious arguments against improving the article.

Also if you/SV/crum375 are too busy: consider that we did spend the time out of our also busy days creating a more accurate lead, with lots of reasoning behind to save the disputes: and all you SV and crum really have found time to do is revert and refer to one article with the two terms in the same sentence but which does not back the claims. It appears it's not ok to revert SV's massive changes (which were contributions though.. although against the discussion pages on each of the pages), nor is it ok to ever change them regardless how flawed it is shown time and time again. NathanLee 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which just goes, once again, to show that you would rather rant for several paragraphs than get to the point. I'm sorry but you are missing the concept of 'compromise' if you think 'you lot should give up' is a compromise... Also, consensus by a few people doesn't mean there is overall consensus. There are 3 of us saying the same thing (well 4 if you count that other random user). Anyway, now that I have finished work, I shall try and build a compromise version of the 2 and see if that is acceptable to you.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent) If a couple of people say they think "Triumph Daytona 675" and "motorbike" are synonymous: they can even start a revision war on the motorbike page: that doesn't mean some compromise of material on the motorbike page is needed: the person with that personal view needs to pay attention to the evidence or find something that actually supports it. In this case: you have yet to actually show anything that supports the view of equivalent terms OR crop/intensive farming inclusion. In short: you're being pig headed and yes: in this regard unless you provide some proof "you lot should give up" and let the improvements that were made stand. If there's no evidence to support a claim: it doesn't matter how many people you have saying it: it simply isn't able to be included in wikipedia. That's a suitable concept for a blog, but the policy on original research leaves no room for discussion. The previous version makes no claims that aren't supported, hence it is an improvement. Additionally: why is it that britannica's definition, two dictionaries, a million and one articles provided for you, animal activist definitions (and really: come on - surely they would widen the scope as much as possible?) ALL seem to disagree with you. Yet still you persist without any evidence. The compromise would be: "Everyone seems to think of factory farming as this and sometimes this, but Crum375/SV/Localzuk believe against consensus that it is an equivalent term for various fields of agriculture" (with a citation to this discussion page). Would that be a suitable addition? NathanLee 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: I attempted this before I made the changes, and before SV blasted all hers through that got us to this point in the first place. How about you accept to revert your changes and use the channel I created to talk about this stuff "here Proposed New lead-in paragraphs - Comments welcome" and again earlier, oh and again, etc. Those that did contribute through the discussion page rather than "undo" button: approved it was a better edit (albeit not perfect, but better than having OR in it). Forcing a revert war and page lock to justify some sort of "compromise" (rather than just say "oh, I guess that was wrong in my interpretation") when many attempts including requests on user talk pages to engage in discussion were made and ignored is a poor substitute for finding evidence. But that's just another rant.. But if you think your need for discussion now deserves a chance, by all means present your evidence and we'll see how it stacks up. Start with crops and then we'll need an article for each term that you think is equivalent that uses the terms in a way that's not able to be said that the article is saying "a type of" or "subset" of.. Oh and why intensive agriculture should be merged and deleted. Why the term "factory farm" isn't one that's popular with activists/media. And then why the spelling mistakes, regional english fixes etc are worthy of inclusion also. Then why britannica etc definitions of "factory farm" that say animal/confined etc are not suitable and robust citations for the lead. NathanLee 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Update - SuggestionI'm going to request this page be unprotected since I've got improvements to make and the revert gang have gone silent (or stayed silent) once more. When it is unprotected we'll revert to the newer version (the non OR one) and move forward. If the above editors cannot make their case before any further reverts then it's nothing more than disruptive editing/vandalism (in addition to their existing efforts that have yet to be justified). Anyone got comments/thoughts? NathanLee 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, no. I would strongly disagree with unprotection at this time. Please remember that people have jobs. I am working on a compromise version which I will post here when it is done. Unprotecting now would simply lead back to you posting your version and us lot reverting - for the same reasons we have all outlined, over and over again.

Stop stating that we are doing things 'against consensus' - the fact that we disagree means that there isn't consensus (there, at last count, are 3 of us complaining and 4 of you pushing for that edit - far from consensus). The simple fact remains that you see something as original research and we don't. You are removing a significant summary of controversy over the subject and we don't want it removed. You disagree with the photo being there and we don't. That is not consensus. We have outlined why the version that I last reverted to is better than the version you are proposing but you simply disagree with it. Compromise doesn't mean 'we've heard your arguments and disagree, so we should go with what we say' it means 'lets draw up something that meets both our requirements'. Stop dictating and get on with compromise.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems it's you that's dictating that without proof or effort to contribute meaningfully to the discussion page that you have a right to keep reverting. On the discussion page: you've each popped in, said some POV non-argument, then disappeared when it's shown to be garbage or nothing more than a random statement. How many ways do you need to have pointed out that you have not provided any article that states what you believe. If you are freely admitting that you'll just keep reverting (i.e. "edit warring") but not willing to provide a proper argument against the changes (have you even looked at the page version in question?), or contribute on the discussion page: why don't you just leave the editing to those who will. What exactly is your complaint about the new page? Specifically what in it isn't referenced and is POV? You haven't outlined why it's better, but I have: see the section on "proposed new lead" as to why I made the changes, also the section on the english variant stuff, and the stuff on why there is original research in SV's version. Prehaps start a new section and clearly outline your complaints specifically as saying "I believe it's better" appears to just mean it fits your POV more rather than "is more accurate". Again I'd like to know why you think britannica et al are wrong in their definition and your/SV are right too..? NathanLee 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Haber 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Request the article be put into the more correct revision: the page block

Firstly: Localzuk made a revert and then requested the page be blocked. If this is not prohibited by policy: it damned well should be because it's a pretty crap way of forcing a page to stick up there..

I propose that the last revert made by LocalZuk be reverted as that user was the one who requested the page then be locked and it places the page in the less desirable state of having Original research (claims of synonymous terms, with nothing to back this up). I also think that this version is the preferred one in light of the extensive evidence provided on this discussion page in particular:

• exhaustive coverage of the links for "evidence" with none found,
• the section that was on the proposed changes and reasons for making them,
• changes to make the article fit with policy on international flavour/flavors of English,
• spelling fixes..

There's been a claim that the lead might need some additional changes, but nothing to support the reason to have a page put back to one that HAS been shown to be incorrect.

The allegations that the SV page is better are incorrect:

• there has not been information just chopped out: a talk about mad cow's disease is still in the article
• the OR claim against SV's page still stands, with no evidence/link to suggest it is anything other than OR (equivalent terms and the widened scope of the term that's not present in any citation)
  • contrary to any of the cited references (see here for that list again)
  • contrary to dictionary/encyclopaedia definitions (see britannica's definition, the science terms dictionary one and the websters one)
  • even contrary to activist definitions such as factoryfarming.com and PETA who say it refers to livestock.
• there are numerous other little fixes that got reverted/removed
• the claim that you should "add not remove" is rubbish: this is a wiki, so information is meant to evolve. Otherwise every piece of incorrect data added (such as SV's claim of interchangeable terms) would have to be maintained. In addition extra references were added which were "removed" by the reverts to SV's version by Crum375/localzuk. Hypocritical to suggest that SV's additions are worthy of protection, but any and all others are to be immediately reverted but not discussed.
• nothing says the version in the new page is the final one. Reverting because of an argument that the lead needs more work is a) not constructive at all, b) fallacious and c) removing a more factually correct lead in favour of one polluted with original research. If the quote from a german official *really* needs to be in the lead, then by all means ADD IT IN. No one is stopping you, reverting is a piss poor way of adding that back in (so that it appears twice in the article for some reason).
• reverts are not a substitute for presenting evidence/reading the discussion page/consulting others on the discussion page (e.g. as per the discussion I created about the proposed changes and reasons for changing it)
• not bothering to read or discuss on the talk page is not an excuse for reverting also.

I'm hoping that this will not (once again) fall on deaf ears. NathanLee 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jav43 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee, please read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version . No matter what version is protected, someone believes the wrong version was protected. The protecting admin is not supposed to pick and choose. Take an eventualist attitude. How long is the protection gonna last compared to the rest of all of time? WAS 4.250 05:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you WAS. I say we just ignore the fact the page is protected, and try and resolve this little impasse we have reached.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why I suggested blanking the lead section, by the way. Jav43 08:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey WAS, I saw that page too (amusing). The point was more that if you're going to block it: then block it, don't firstly revert it and then block it because it then becomes just another tool in an edit war.. That was my point with that. The requesting person for protection shouldn't have taken part in the reverting immediately prior is all I'm saying there. It wasn't necessarily malicious: just a bit outside what you'd expect should happen. Regardless we've got to resolve the issue (having it locked on either version is irrelevant to that matter). I don't want to get sidetracked from the issue at hand though. There's the unsupported stuff in the "factory farm is the same as" version that (I think.. and others) has been shown to be original research and contradicts the other "official" definitions (and unofficial activist ones even). NathanLee 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I will say it was pretty unscrupulous for the guy requesting protection to revert to his preferred version immediately before requesting protection; it doesn't help to foster consensus-building and encourage working together, as it could easily be perceived as an underhanded attempt to keep your favored version in place. Either way though, it's time for you guys to work together and work towards a consensus. Krimpet (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so I'm not made out to be some sort of daemon on here... My intentions were entirely honest, hence my saying 'yes I requested protection'. I will fully admit that revert warring has occurred, my intention with protection was to stop it and for us all to just get on with working on a compromise. Nothing more, nothing less. I honestly do not care which version is protected - so long as we come to a reasonable compromise on here.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that SV/Crum/Localzuk haven't exactly engaged with the argument, rather they have fallen back on repeating that a couple of lines from CNN (which emphatically do not mean what they think they do) somehow define the meaning of a term, while refusing to discuss the sources presented that oppose this interpretation. --Coroebus 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the discussion page (although lengthy) has been the place where one side has taken lots of time to explain and reason.. But the revert button with no significant explanation has been the main "discussion" from the other side. NathanLee 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it's fairly obvious that an attempt at "compromise" is futile. We've requested, on several occasions, that Localzuk/SV/Crum edit rather than revert. It hasn't happened. These individuals have refused to consider the facts. What needs to happen is this: Localzuk/SV/Crum need to read this talk page and remove their objections or need to actually provide some reliable sources with express statements that back them up. Jav43 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

SV and Localzuk have used similar tactics on Animal testing. It's part of an animal rights agenda that they are pushing. They hide behind Wikipedia's "civility" code while calling people trolls and filling talk pages with this intentionally obtuse blather. Good faith is long exhausted. Assume the worst. Haber 20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This was the first time I looked at the "animal testing" talk page. The similarities between Localzuk/SV's statements and attacks and positions are amazing - the discussion of "animal testing" and the discussion here are identical, right down to Localzuk's "civility"/"disruption" arguments and SV's discussion of happy animals :P. I am finding it difficult to understand why these are "respected" editors. Jav43 22:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Because we have done an awful lot of work improving dozens of articles, policies, guidelines, projects etc... We've spent huge amounts of time making things less POV, preventing nonsense from entering articles, removing vandalism, battling trolls who are only here to annoy people, etc... Just because you disagree with our viewpoints doesn't negate those efforts.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk: if instead of "compromise" (because basically there's nothing to compromise for without some evidence.. At this stage I'm not accepting anything that says the terms are equivalent without proof that's more than saying because the terms occur in the same article they're equivalent): how about you address the issues in this section at the top in bulletpoint. If you think that any of those are incorrect, please say so. No more distraction: you've yet to answer a single one of the claims between the 3 of you dissenting editors (well.. just you who is contributing since the block). Just address those and perhaps we can see what your issue is with the newer version. There's plenty on this discussion page about why I think the version sucks and the newer one is better. But how about you have a go at the bullet points..? NathanLee 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Arguments For and Against the "new" version

In an effort to get a final idea of whether there is any basis for this reverting by SV/crum/localzuk here are the various reasons why the new version is a better one. Here are the issues raised.

A: NOLINK no link that says any two of the terms "Factory farming", "intensive farming", "industrial agriculture" are (all encompassing) equivalent (so that is original research) while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming". There is no article which states this and it disagrees with britannica, and the dictionary definitions found) e.g. walkthrough of the articles

B: NOLINK_INTENSIVE Intensive farming simply means requirement of extra inputs to maximise returns per smaller area of land (as opposed to extensive farming)

C: NOLINK_IND_AG Industrial agriculture is a broad field: again encompassing more than just factory farms which are just a type of industrial agriculture. We know for sure that crops/aquaculture are part of industrial agriculture and so is factory farming.. Therefore it's fair to say it's just a type or subset. As Coroebus found in a bunch of sources.. e.g. [48]

D: NO_LINK_CNN The CNN article does indeed mention both factory farming, but the sentence does not link the two as equivalent terms

E: ANIMALS_ONLY Found definitions (britannica/dictionaries) refer to animals and confinement. It may also just mean "large number of animals" based on other sources.. But it's pretty safe to say it's worthy of putting in the lead.

F: NO_CROPS The term does not appear to be applied to crops. (OR)

G: NO_AQUA The term does not appear to apply to aquaculture (fish, shellfish, algae etc). (OR).

H: NO_ACTIVIST Activist sites do not agree with SV's definition (see PETA's definition/factoryfarm.org etc and they refer to livestock.. not crops, no mention of equivalency of terms etc). Not that we should use their definitions, but you'd think that they would back up a radical claim

I: ACTIVIST_MEDIA Britannica's definition backs the claim that the term is made mainly by animal activists and its use in headlines means it's used by the media. (OR).

J: ENG the new version is more in line with the policy on english variants (removed all US/English spellings), so more correct.

K: NEW_NOT_OR the newer version is less OR so therefore more desirable.

L: CHOP a complaint was made that information was chopped out (in specific the mad cow reference) in the new

M: ADD_NOT_REMOVE Complaint was made that the changes were reverted because changes should not always add not remove the work of other editors

N: GESTATION_PIC pig sow pic has been moved down the page, there's a push for this to be at the top of the page

O: CONSENSUS Claim was made that the changes NL made were due to consensus on the discussion page

P: NO_DEFINITIONS_IN_LEAD argument was made that you can't have definitions in the lead

So, I'm now going to ask everyone who seems to have an interest to examine each of the issues and for any that they have issues with, refer to them by their codes. Any new ones, add in with a code so we can discuss. If you're happy with the new version being put back then say so, if not, then say so also. But having the page locked (on a 5 minute before revert) is an issue for me as it's inaccurate in my eyes. NathanLee 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Notified - Agrofe, FNMF, Coroebus, Jav43, Haber, Crum375, Localzuk, WAS, SlimVirgin on talk pages as they all seem to have contributed to the discussions since this all began.. NathanLee 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee, I am not clear how using a series of cryptic computer-code-like names describing your issues is going to move us forward. The way I like to address issues is on a one-by-one basis, not all at once. For example, to me it is clear that a reasonable person would read the CNN/Reuters and the CBC articles as equating Factory Farming, Intensive Farming and Intensive Agriculture. You and some others disagree. It seems to me we need a wider forum to get some more opinions on this and other issues. Crum375 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum: there's been so many attempts, this is a good way to raise all your issues or dispute the claims. Doing it bit by bit hasn't worked because a) you guys disappear after one post, and b) you haven't respected requests to discuss rather than reverting and c) if your reverting then avoiding discussion is reason enough to say the issue isn't closed: it'll never be "closed" and that's unfair to those who want to contribute.. So if you can't contribute to the discussion area then can you agree to let those who will put their edits in without reverting?

The naming was rather than "A", "B", "C".

If your issue is with the CNN article: my comment to that would be that it doesn't say they're the same:

United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease.

A) If they're the same: why would the article say to move away from one, yet drop the other? b) Question: does it make sense if you take the definition (as per britannica and others) as factory farming being a type of intensive farming, or something that makes USE of intensive farming? c) Simply having mention of both in an article does not mean they're the same thing. They're urging a move away from the concept of intensive farming with the specific mention that a particular disease could disappear if factory farms disappear. So part of, or one step in moving away is to stop doing factory farming. Just like scientists calling from a moving away from dependence on fossil fuels saying that stopping the use of coal power stations is the only way to clean up the air. That doesn't mean "coal power stations" and "dependence on fossil fuels" are identical terms. One is a type of the other, but not the other way around. Does that clear that up? NathanLee 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the CNN article, it clearly equates Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. It simply uses the two terms as synonyms, so as not to repeat the same word. There is no other logical way to understand that article, and we have gone around that many times in the above discussion. If you still disagree, we really need to get a wider forum, as we do for the other issues. Crum375 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the CNN article stands for that proposition, which it doesn't, an online newspaper article is not a good source when it is contradicted by professional research-based and peer-reviewed documents. The CNN article only uses dicta, which shouldn't be considered. Jav43 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jav43, per above discussion, please refrain from inventing new policies, like 'dicta'. Wikipedia is built on very specific set of rules, like WP:V and WP:NOR (summarized in WP:ATT), which are the only ones that apply. If every editor here were to invent his/her favorite policies on the fly, we'd have a very hard time collaborating, as I am sure you can appreciate. Crum375 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay... seriously... basic research rules, codified or not, apply here. Jav43 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research is actually not allowed here. The only rules that apply, are very well described in WP:V and WP:NOR (summarized in WP:ATT), WP:NPOV, etc. You are not allowed to apply any other rules that you invent, like "basic research rules, codified or not". Again, if each of us were to invent his/her own rules, we wouldn't get very far. Crum375 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right! I'm not creating OR - I'm stopping you from drawing your own OR conclusions from dicta. Look at the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Sources about tertiary sources and combining sources (WP:SYN) to make a point. That's what you're doing. You should not cite a source for a proposition unless the source actually stands for that proposition. Citing dicta does not meet that qualification. Jav43 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not following. Where exactly do you find anything in our policies about "citing dicta"? If you can't, then you are clearly inventing your own rules, which simply won't get us anywhere. I'll address the rest once you explain to me where you see the 'dicta' rule. Crum375 02:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding other issues because you can't prevail on this one won't "get us anywhere". It doesn't matter whether there is something in Wikipedia policy or not: any reasonable, unbiased person should know to avoid citing something as a source unless it actually stands for that proposition. Regardless, I provided you with two references. Specifically look at WP:SYN. You are combining various interpretations of terms in ways that are not done in a single text. Find a text that actually defines terms and I'll give it due credence. (Oh, but Nathan already did so, and you ignored him. So unbiased of you.) Jav43 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee

Ones I have issues with:

• NO_DEFINITION_IN_LEAD is silly: that's half of what the lead is about.
• GESTATION_PIC - the new version still has the pic, just not at the top: it's also from an activist site, so perhaps it carries a POV.
• ADD_NOT_REMOVE: not policy, not a reason, not how wikipedia works, no reason not to improve an article to remove OR.
• CHOP - mad cow article is actually still in the new one.. So not an issue.

That's all for now.. NathanLee 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I will comment when I've sobered up.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll read it after I've sobered up and slept ;) NathanLee 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree, although ENG doesn't matter either way in my opinion. Jav43 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Haber

Wow dude, this is exhausting... NOLINK agree NOLINK_INTENSIVE agree NOLINK_IND_AG agree NO_LINK_CNN agree ANIMALS_ONLY agree NO_CROPS agree NO_AQUA agree NO_ACTIVIST no opinion ACTIVIST_MEDIA agree ENG no opinion NEW_NOT_OR agree CHOP no opinion ADD_NOT_REMOVE confused - but I think deletions can be just as legitimate as adding content GESTATION_PIC disagree CONSENSUS no opinion NO_DEFINITIONS_IN_LEAD disagree -- Too bad you couldn't help me pick a horse in the Preakness. Haber 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Co0l, I just mashed all the various issues I saw were brought up (may have missed some.. in which case.. add 'em in) so that we can work out what we all agree on and then focus on the sticking points perhaps.. We may only really differ on a couple of things.. NathanLee 23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 (others may feel free to comment here as well)

A: NOLINK The argument labeled "nolink" that says that while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming". There is no article which states this and it disagrees with britannica, and the dictionary definitions found) e.g. walkthrough of the articles

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

B: NOLINK_INTENSIVE Intensive farming simply means requirement of extra inputs to maximise returns per smaller area of land (as opposed to extensive farming)

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

C: NOLINK_IND_AG Industrial agriculture is a broad field: again encompassing more than just factory farms which are just a type of industrial agriculture. We know for sure that crops/aquaculture are part of industrial agriculture and so is factory farming. Therefore it's fair to say it's just a type or subset. As Coroebus found in a bunch of sources. For example: [49]

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

D: NO_LINK_CNN The CNN article does indeed mention both factory farming, but the sentence does not link the two as equivalent terms.

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

E: ANIMALS_ONLY Found that definitions of the term "factory farming" in britannica/dictionaries refer to animals and confinement. It may also just mean "large number of animals" based on other sources.. But it's pretty safe to say it's worthy of putting in the lead.

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

F: NO_CROPS The term "factory farming" does not appear to be applied to crops. "Original Research"

Yes WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

G: NO_AQUA The term "factory farming" does not appear to apply to aquaculture (fish, shellfish, algae etc). "Original Research"

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

H: NO_ACTIVIST Activist sites do not agree with SV's definition (see PETA's definition/factoryfarm.org etc and they refer to livestock.. not crops, no mention of equivalency of terms etc). Not that we should use their definitions, but you'd think that they would back up a radical claim

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I: ACTIVIST_MEDIA Britannica's definition backs the claim that the term is made mainly by animal activists and its use in headlines means it's used by the media. (OR).

Yes. So? WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

J: ENG the new version is more in line with the policy on english variants (removed all US/English spellings), so more correct.

I don't care about US versus British language differences. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

K: NEW_NOT_OR the newer version is less "Original Research" so therefore more desirable.

Conflating different terms based on our evaluating newspaper useage is original reseach. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

L: CHOP a complaint was made that information was chopped out (in specific the mad cow reference) in the new

The mad cow comment by a political leader does not belong in the lead. It is a detail and not a summary. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

M: ADD_NOT_REMOVE Complaint was made that the changes were reverted because changes should not always add not remove the work of other editors

Stupid stuff is said and done in a revert war. Let's move beyond this argument. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

N: GESTATION_PIC pig sow pic has been moved down the page, there's a push for this to be at the top of the page

Stop fighting about the damn picture. It's not that important. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

O: CONSENSUS Claim was made that the changes NL made were due to consensus on the discussion page

There is no consensus on the talk page. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

P: NO_DEFINITIONS_IN_LEAD argument was made that you can't have definitions in the lead

You can have definitions in the lead. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with WAS on each of the points. FNMF 23:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's way too much to read here. I think we should deal with the issues point by point, and everyone should be as succinct as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan made this insanely simple. Either respond to the issues he listed, or admit that you really don't have any arguments to back you up. Jav43 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk page has gone to hell in a handbasket because of Nathan's absurdly long posts, which I freely admit I've not read and won't be reading. He's posted to this page 98 times in seven days.

We have policies and guidelines, and we must stick to them; we don't need Nathan's invented rules. As for the lead, please review WP:LEAD: the lead must include the topic's notable controversies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to actually work on this article, why did you keep reverting to a polluted version? Jav43 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

SV: if you can't contribute or bother to read other people's contributions: Why the hell do you keep reverting this page? You seem obsessed with pointing out number of contributions (you did it to both Jav43 and myself.. see above) as part of an attack on people's credentials: yet here you are now saying that too much contribution is a reason to ignore it and that we should continue to tolerate (with infinite patience) your disruptive editing style. I've not invented any policies or rules (again: an unfounded, unjustified statement): that's just false and a fallacious argument to boot. I and others have been happy to read and respond to the few comments you throw in and then disappear: but you can't see there's been a hell of an attempt to justify why your edit needs improvement then I suggest you try reading for a change.

We should not be having to edit war to make up for your laziness and inability to discuss or read contributions of others. Why have I had to post so many times? Perhaps it's because you didn't take the time to read or contribute earlier on and then started an edit war to make up for your lack of professional courtesy.

Thanks for explaining why you keep asking the same ignorant questions time and time again: you've never listened to the answers.. I should point out you've basically voided your right to revert and invalidated your reasons for doing so in the past.. NathanLee 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Being overly verbose is as damaging to a discussion as not providing enough information. It is difficult to follow this discussion due to your long posts. As I have said elsewhere - be succinct and stop repeating yourself. What SV wants is for you to post one point at a time, rather than post the lot in one long block. It makes it easier to reply to them.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and your continuing to not provide justification is just making it longer. If SV can't read a list and needs a list of one per item: that's not our issue. Most people of reading age can cope with lists in day to day life (e.g. shopping lists, lists of instructions, lists of WP policies to wave around). It's no more than another stalling tactic in the absence of evidence. Can I request you stop side arguments and just give evidence or agree to let the rest of us continue with the article. NathanLee

Number of articles

I believe the time has come to conclude there should be three different articles, with three different talk pages. FNMF 01:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you say why three? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The positions of each of the disputing parties appear fairly intractable. At the same time, it seems possible to define each of the three (factory farming, industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture) in a fairly specific way while nevertheless each of the three will be notable enough to deserve an entry. With these two points in mind, having three separate entries seems like the most workable solution, and a legitimate one. Naturally, each of the three will likely refer to the others, and they do not all need to be equally lengthy. I think if such a solution is pursued, it should be made clear in the opening of each what is the specific definition, to avoid problems later on. FNMF 01:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(again.. *sigh* ) Because it is original research to suggest that they're anything but three different things. A bizarre deduction from the same two articles that we've time and time again explained do NOT use the terms interchangably is not a substitute for the verifiable "factory farming is a type of industrial agriculture and uses or is a type of intensive farming". Got to britannica or any proper encyclopaedia and you'll see an entry for intensive farming, one for industrial agriculture and maybe something for factory farming.. But you're probably not reading this answer AGAIN for the umpteenth time so this is a waste of time.. Again.. NathanLee 09:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And again, just because you think that doesn't mean you are right. From the evidence given I see there are some who see the terms as synonymous, and some who don't. You simply have to accept this.

Now, splitting the article is not the answer - we need to provide better descriptions of what the terms refer to and this apparent disparity between the word's usage.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just not what I think: You've only got your interpretation of TWO articles as the whole basis for this claim. Why does that override numerous encyclopaedic/dictionary definitions AND articles AND the lack of crop/aquaculture citation? NathanLee 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't override it - it simply adds to the problem. One set of sources doesn't override another - they should both be included with information.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But when it's your (slightly strange) interpretation (e.g. can be called OR) that's questionable: you should "err" on what can be proven and what can't be just said to be misinterpretation of two conjoined topics in a sentence. If you say it is a subset: that entirely agrees with no disputes with your source as well.. Thus bringing the overall definition into line with what's easily citable. NathanLee 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should we err? We have 2 sets of sources, one supposedly saying one thing and the other supposedly saying the opposite. Why should we be picking one side of that?-Localzuk^(talk) 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your POV isn't even supported by a set of sources. We have a large number of clear sources explaining that factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are separate and distinct terms... and then we have your personal activist-based POV that all modern agriculture is "factory farming". Unfortunately, you have failed to back up your POV with any clear sources. I'm sorry that you've gone through life so far without understanding the nature of modern agriculture or the term "factory farming", but that isn't our fault. Jav43 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it isn't supported - whereas it is mine, Crum's and SV's that it is supported. Stop going back to that point - you aren't going to suddenly convince us otherwise. It is, as I have said before, called compromise. Stop pushing for a single outcome when you know we aren't suddenly going to say 'oh we were wrong all along, how silly of us'.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's my opinion that your POV isn't supported based upon what you've presented thus far. It's your opinion that you don't need solid sources because you have some omniscient conception of intransient factoids. By the way, where there's a "right" and "wrong", there can be no compromise. Based upon current facts, you're absolutely wrong. If you demonstrate otherwise, then we can reconsider. (Oh, and if you're so interested in compromise, then why did you continuously revert?) Jav43 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you misunderstand the concepts behind this site if you think we are here to present 'right'. We are here to present all sides of an argument - and as such, the argument is laid out above. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it should be ignored. Hence, compromise.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's called "Original research". We ARE here to present a correct and accurate article set. Not to allow any random view to get its place in an article. If it isn't supported within reason: it doesn't belong on wikipedia. NathanLee 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Please understand that the sources provided back our side of the argument. They provide a significant argument also. So including it is required by our WP:NPOV policy. And, we are not here to present a 'correct and accurate' article set, we are here to present a 'correct, verifiable and accurate' article set. And the info we are discussing is verifiable.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: This talk page has become absurd, with no sign of resolution. Editors should allow three articles to be created and worked up to a reasonable condition. At that point, if editors continue to believe that one or more of these articles should be deleted, they can commence an AfD. I cannot see a justification for prolonging the stalemate by artificially refusing to allow the three articles to be created. On what grounds can editors refuse to allow the three articles to be created and worked on? If the articles are illegitimate, that will be established when the time comes by a proper process. Simply complaining that the posts are too long to read seems like a refusal to advance the situation, regardless of who is right. Again: the only solution is to permit three articles to be worked on, with three separate talk page discussions. Nothing is permanent, and an AfD later on can always decide what to keep and what to ditch, if need be. FNMF 17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, I've always thought 3 articles were necessary. NathanLee 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that would just cause chaos. We would end up with 3 articles with such similar content it makes it pointless.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where you are right now is chaos. One possibility is that you will end up with three overly-similar articles, which can be determined by AfD. Another possibility is that the articles will be different enough to all deserve retention. I consider such an outcome entirely plausible. Furthermore, even if you feel that way, on what grounds can you insist on preventing three articles? Surely they are not candidates for a speedy delete (or, if you disagree, you can try it). FNMF 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now it appears you're the only one wanting this change or believing this point of view Localzuk. SV's silent, as is Crum375. Does this mean they're not interested? They still seem to be actively editing.. If it's just you, perhaps can you let the page be unlocked so we can all contribute, we'll put the page to the new version and then archive this talk page and go from there?

By all means we can work on padding out the lead, no one's said it is fixed in stone. But the revert doesn't really seem to have strong justification if it's just not long enough or there's one interpretation of a couple of articles that leads you to deduce something. There's significant reason to say that the other version has OR or can be said to have OR. The new version doesn't seem to have had that charge levelled at it from what I can see. We can discuss proposals for fleshing it out more, but as I (and the bunch of contributors here) seem to think that it's a better choice to move forward from (correct me if I'm wrong anyone). SV said herself that there was a distinction in what people thought the terms meant prior to this merge concept.. So we're not looking so strong on that aspect if SV herself seems to have thought so.. NathanLee 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry but this 'they've gone quiet' nonsense has got to stop. Not everyone can post here all the time. Please remember that. This is why we have AFD's that last at least 5 days etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I note the tendency of editors to argue about anything except how to move forward. This is the main reason the talk page has become absurd, and all editors should strive to curb this tendency. I also note that no grounds have yet been provided to justify preventing the creation of three entries. To give some more specific content to my proposal, I think each of the three entries ought to include a relation to the others. Without wishing to dictate definitions, I think the entries should begin with something resembling the following:

• Industrial agriculture: Industrial agriculture is the application of industrial methods to agricultural practice. Aspects of industrial agriculture include [list follows, including factory farming and intensive farming, among others].
• Intensive farming: Intensive farming is a form of agriculture that seeks to obtain high inputs...etc...frequently an aspect of industrial agriculture. Aspects of intensive farming include factory farming etc.
• Factory farming: Factory farming is a form of industrial agriculture and intensive farming that [something limiting the definition to confinement of animals, etc.].

With definitions along these lines, editors will have clear enough guidelines to work up each of the entries and see where the situation leads. FNMF 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for FNMF

FNMF, can you provide a source showing that these are three different things, and are as you define them? (This is a question for FNMF only, please.) I'm asking this not to be difficult, but to make sure that we're not engaged in OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to be tricky, I don't think this is the right question right now. There are interminable arguments by multiple parties about the relation between these terms. I happen to lean to the view that they can be defined in a legitimate way that separates them enough to warrant three entries. If factory farming is to refer to the confinement of animals, then surely industrial agriculture is more general than factory farming. And nobody seems that bothered by the definition of intensive farming. More to the point, even if I am wrong, I am arguing that, given the absolutely stalled situation, such a question should be postponed. The separate entries should be worked on, in a manner that tries to maintain fidelity to the notion that these are separate but interrelated phenomena, and then if one or more entries need to be deleted, that can be done through an AfD process. In short, if an entry involves original research, that is something to be discussed at that entry, but the question of whether creating three entries itself constitutes original research seems like a strange argument to me. And I can't see how else progress is likely to be made: despite talk of compromise, there is no evidence of anybody shifting ground. FNMF 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we're engaging in original research by claiming there are three separate types of farming here. It's against policy to do that, and it's the out-of-policy editing that has caused the problems here. I can understand wanting to separate animals and crops, and indeed we used to have Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). But no one has yet offered a source that shows there are three separate things called (a) Factory farming, (b) Intensive farming, and (c) Industrial agriculture. The fact is that mainstream news sources do use the terms interchangeably, and I've offered sources to that effect several times. We can't have a situation where Wikipedia is the only source on the Internet that makes the distinction, but without explaining exactly what that distinction is. Our work must be sourced-based.

I personally don't care what the article is called; it used to be called Industrial agriculture, and I was fine with that too. (Others arrived recently and changed it to Factory farming.) What I object to is having three pages, because some will end up as POV forks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be original research to have seperate articles on jews, israelis and zionists even though it is quite clear that some reporters use the terms in ways that can be argued to be interchangeable? Insisting that all three are the same thing to avoid POV forks is not appropriate. Different things are different. Even if some reporters get mixed up. WAS 4.250 09:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for WAS

Was, I've asked this three times now. You reverted my lead a few times saying it contained original research, but you didn't say what. [50] Could you tell me, please, what was OR? If you don't say, I can't fix it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is filled with the answer to that. Unfortunately, you keep refusing to read this talk page, so we keep being forced to repeat ourselves. Why don't you just read this page instead? Jav43 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. WAS hasn't actually answered it, you have... But I disagree with your analysis of it anyway.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you can disagree all you like: if you're unable to understand logic or English sentence structure: we can't help that. If you look up run on sentences perhaps that'll show you an example of sentences which you would regard as saying the same thing were it not separated by a coordinating conjunction. NathanLee 14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered; but I can't help those who won't read or can't understand what they read. "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you." WAS 4.250 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where you've answered it. Could you cut and paste your answer into this section, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am short with you, but your agressive take no prisoners style of fighting makes me wary. Read the section "WAS 4.250 (others may feel free to comment here as well)" for my answer and read prior sections for the evidence presented by others for those positions. WAS 4.250 09:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead

The lead must stick to WP:LEAD. This says:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

Therefore, can we make a list here of what we agree are the topic's notable controversies? (They must all be carefully sourced.)

1. The chancellor of Germany calling for an end to factory farming because of BSE; British scientists saying factory farming was the cause of BSE.
2. Gestation crates, which the committee set up by McDonald's (hardly animal rights activists) identifed as factory farming's most controversial issue.
3. Overuse of antibiotics and growth hormone, leading to human health problems (e.g. the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria)
4. Pollution to the environment from waste disposal

Are there any other issues that stand out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other issues. Read this talk page already. Jav43 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Nathan's version has a succinct and good version of a straightfoward summary of the topic's notable controversies. The controveries don't need detail in the lead, as you'd realize if you weren't trying to push your POV. Jav43 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are evading the real issue which is that industrial agriculture =/= factory farming. If you actually read the talk page(which you admitted that you can't be bothered to), you would have known this.--Dodo bird 07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think that we don't need specifics of people's quotes (e.g. stating that some official somewhere has an issue is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.. e.g. is factory farming defined or critical to a german chancellor's views? No.), rather just that there are often issues raised about the health/environmental issues is enough of a mention without losing neutrality. I'd also urge against focussing too much on introducing controversy over actually defining what factory farming is. An encyclopaedic entry shouldn't be focussing too much on controversy, after all that's infecting factual definition with POV or defining something by its controversy itself. So: yes factory farming has controversy.. That's not what the major portion of the lead should be. Otherwise you're giving more weight to other people's view of the thing than the thing itself. e.g. do we go to the gay page and put endless quotes from anti-gay religious leaders? Do we give it anything more than a brief mention that some people have issues? No, or if we do then we shouldn't because that's entirely POV.

Neutrality and no original research is (I would think) far more important than mentioning every controversy. An enc. entry on factory farming would be acceptable if it just outlined what factory farming was, but if it didn't bother defining what it was and ploughed on into controversy. NathanLee 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, why is it that every time you post, your posts are a good 4 times larger than anyone elses? You have repeated your same arguments over and over and refuse to listen to our points. Please be more succinct - it makes this entire issue difficult to deal with if everytime a reader visits the page they have to trawl through a couple of essays worth of repetitive info from yourself. (Note, this isn't specifically about this post above, but about the many you have posted over the last week).

Now, onto this point. Nathan's version removes all mention of notable controversies from the article - without them being in the intro, the entire controversy part of the lead is a single line 'Proponents of factory farming argue for the benefits of increased efficiencies, while opponents argue that it harms the environment,[10] creates health risks,[11][6][12] and abuses animals.[13][10]' which is too short. The entire lead by Nathan is too short and does not suitably cover all aspects of the article - instead focusing on defining terms.

The way I see it, the lead should be split into 2 - a general description of the subject matter in one paragraph, this would include history, methods and a little on definitions (this would include the 'for argument') and then a similarly sized amount of detail on the 'against' arguments - as these are the currently notable aspects of the subject (the general worldwide discussion on factory farming is regarding the controversy surrounding it). To give the controversy any less focus would not be reflecting on the real world significance correctly. We are not a dictionary, so are not simply defining the term - we are covering all notable aspects of it.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy: Because I actually attempt to back up my statements, which takes more than two words saying "it's better", or "more consistent".

• "Too short" then add to it, don't revert to a bad OR version!
• How is my lead not mentioning the controversy if it summarised them all with extra citations for all bits, unlike the other one
• If you read my posts I'm answering things in a different way since you seem to miss the point (or like SV just don't bother reading).
• You guys have been reverting without discussion and for bullshit reasons that change every 5 minutes, to give you credit: you're contributing thoughts now..
• it succinctly covers the contents, INCLUDING the various complaints and defines the term accurately (which the other did not). I don't see how they're gone if they're in the sentence you quoted!
• The one you revert to has OR and does not define it as per any valid easily acceptable version.
• Revert is the dumbest/most abrasive way you could have said "it's too short" (which you didn't mention at all and had ample opportunity to do so).
• The bit about the chancellor is not Lead worthy, it belongs in the body. Lead is a summary, not the entire article. If the chancellor was the inventor or a major contributor or figurehead of the industry: maybe. But he's just a politician voicing an opinion. NathanLee 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Backing up your statements doesn't mean rambling on for hours and repeating yourself.
• I did add to it, by reverting to the last good version of the lead before it was brutally culled.
• We are getting the point, you just are repeating yourself without listening to the arguments put forward or accepting that the opposing view is a valid one, backed up with references.
• The reasons don't change. It is just that there are so many reasons to revert that they far outweigh the reasons not to.
• It doesn't cover the contents - it goes into far too much detail about definitions and then sums up half the page in one sentence... That is not a good summary. For an article this size we should be looking at 4 paragraphs in the lead.
• It isn't OR, we have shown that it isn't many, many times...
• Well, it is pretty obvious when you read WP:LEAD that it is far too short - I didn't think it was necessary to repeatedly tell you to read the guideline on this issue.
• The bit about the chancellor succinctly summarises an aspect of the article.The lead should be a mini-version of the main article. It doesn't have to use the eaxact same refs and info as in the main info, so if a quote does a good job of summarising an issue then so be it.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting without supported does not constitute "adding to". Look down below and you'll see that even SlimVirgin suggests that the term means it refers to animals not crops.. We're still waiting for some other references other than your selective interpretation of one sentence with two topics as to why that means all the terms are the same AND how crops/aquaculture fit in with no reference available. But that's just repeating the question you've so far ignored successfully for so long with sidetracked arguments. NathanLee 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I have filed an RfC on this article. The fundamental issue with this article at the moment appears to be whether Factory Farming is synonymous with Industrial Agriculture and Intensive Agriculture. Once that question is settled I believe that editing will be able to return to something of normality.

• Pro-argument: Although "factory farming" is often used to talk about enclosed animal rearing that is because of increased attention to this aspect of factory farming, but it includes other non-animal aspects like monocropping:

Examples showing that it is synonymous with industrial agriculture or intensive farming (all emphasis mine):

1. OED "factory farm orig. U.S., a farm organized on industrial lines"
2. Free Dictionary thesaurus "factory farm - a large-scale farming enterprise"
3. CBC "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination...a report...entitled Protection of Ontario's Groundwater and Intensive Farming, questions the safety of groundwater, which is supplied to three million people in the province. Miller points to larger livestock farms in Ontario, which produce more manure or agricultural run-off, and, hence, a higher risk of groundwater contamination."
4. CNN "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease."

• Anti-argument: "Factory farming" is usually used to refer to enclosed animal rearing practices, and rarely to encompass all industrial or intensive agriculture, therefore these terms are distinct and not-synonymous, although factory farming may be a subset or part of "industrial agriculture" or "intensive agriculture".

Examples showing it is distinct (emphasis mine):

1. McGraw Hill dictionary "factory farming...Raising livestock indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility."
2. Concise Britannica "Factory farming. System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible."
3. Cambridge idiom dictionary "factory farming a system for producing eggs, meat, and milk quickly and cheaply by keeping animals in small closed areas and giving them food which makes them grow quickly."
4. UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Firstly, just under 80% of respondents expressed opposition to intensive farming practices, such as factory farming..."
5. Capital Times "Just 10 years ago, only a handful of farms in Wisconsin met the definition of "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" (CAFO) - or, in environmental circles, a factory farm."
6. Jarosz Agriculture and Human Values 2000 "Industrial agriculture is characterized as capital and resource intensive, large-scale, high yielding, and mechanized with monocultural cropping systems directed to local, national, and international markets."
7. U.S. Catholic "...focus on the ways industrial agriculture (and factory farms in particular) harm and abuse billions of animals each year."

Comments welcome, feel free to add better examples to either side of the argument. --Coroebus 09:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the argument for equivalency is rather flimsy if you stack up
  • selective interpretation of implied similarity of terms in 2 news articles against
  • hard no-confusion definitions from dictionary sources and encyclopaedias and no crop/aquaculture mention..

If we had anything other than those two news articles then there might be grounds for further discussion. But as we've got plenty of dispute (I think it's a ridiculous assertion myself "move away from X, and to stop Y to prevent Z" to read it as meaning that X and Y are the same??!?) that the interpretation of those articles implies a "definition" versus hardcore "this is what factory farming is" from multiple sources and the still unanswered crops issue. Gotta be a pretty powerful argument to override primary primary sources for a skewed reading of one sentence in an article or two.. NathanLee 12:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anti - Factory farming is such a loaded term that its use in an encyclopedia should be avoided altogether. Activist terminology is incompatible with the NPOV policy. Taking it a step further to include all intensive agriculture is simply over the top, and I see no solid evidence to support that leap. Haber 12:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This site is not a regular encyclopedia. It covers things that are notable - and the term 'Factory Farming' is notable. I see the evidence as solid - it is simple english.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an example will help clarify this. Notable talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger uses the terms "shacking up" to refer to cohabitation and "sucking your baby into a sink" to refer to abortion. Her supporters might say that there is evidence we should file all information about these topics under her preferred terms. Now we can choose to sound like activists or we can choose to sound like an encyclopedia. I submit that the latter route will lead to more success for Wikipedia in the long run. Haber 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that it isn't just one group of people who use the term - it is activists, the media, notable figures, government reports etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet no one who supports modern agriculture uses "factory farming". That means the term is perjorative rather than definitive. It shouldn't be what an encyclopedia uses. Jav43 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the term which is most commonly used in general should be used per our naming conventions.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You see a stretched interpretation of two news articles as overriding researched material from britannica, websters, Mcgraw hill etc? Can you question their definitions in any way? Crops/aquaculture don't seem to be referred to as factory farming (still waiting for that to be addressed) but you seem to want to lump that in. Let's assume your interpretation of two isolated sources is correct. Do you think they override the mass of other ones (and their compatible definitions of being "a type of" with your articles)? You're arguing for selective interpretation of a couple of news articles to override well defined and "safe" (from an OR point of view) definition. No one can come along for the new lead and say "hey: factory farming doesn't mean that" because we can point to several bullet proof definitions that say it is. Safer is better, no? NathanLee 13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, it isn't a case of overriding - it is a case of their existence and the fact you can't just ignore them because there are opposing views. We have to present both views.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to share a source that actually supports your personal POV. Jav43 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What POV? That we should present both views? Or that the words or synonymous? If the prior, that is simply policy, if the latter I think we have those that are in the lead at the moment - even though you disagree with them.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should present an overall neutral coverage. Any POV stuff needs to be attributed and referenced so that it's not the article's POV, it's clearly someone else's POV and backed by a source to confirm. Without a reference, there's no way it can go in.. (I realise wikipedia is full of unreferenced stuff.. but this one is getting enough editor time to be referenced) NathanLee 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's previous argument - still relevent?

Since my arguments are too much to read/too wordy etc, I'll quote SV on whether it's fair to say FF and IA are different.. (from the archive page)

This page and Factory farming seemed to be getting mixed up, with material being copied back and forth, and the criticism section of FF being moved to here. I've therefore moved anything to do with animals to FF and called it Factory farming (animals), and anything to do with crops here and called it Industrial agriculture (crops). That division seems to make most sense because when most people think of FF, they think of animals, and when they think of agriculture, they think of crops. In this way, we can avoid repetition or forks. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it no longer makes sense, and people are entitled to change their minds (this isn't politics), but if extra dictionary definitions and more references to support that notion are somehow still worth overriding: Is this the same SlimVirgin at the keyboard still? :) The comment at the end was correct: if you merge them then you'll have repetition and forks, that's for sure (we've witnessed). Sound advice that should have been heeded.. NathanLee 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A request

Nathan, would you consider not posting here for a few days? You've made 114 posts here in eight days, many of them very long, and it's making the talk page hard to use (for me, anyway), and drowning out other people's opinions.

Perhaps you could allow Localzuk, WAS, Jav, Crum, Coroebus, Haber, FNMF, and me to discuss the issues for, say, 72 hours in an effort to find common ground, then you could comment on our conclusions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually a lot of the static is coming from Localzuk, whose page protection trick inflamed the situation. Why not ask him to step aside temporarily as well? Haber 18:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking only Nathan to step aside is that he has posted 21,900 words to this page in 115 posts over eight days, almost all of them his own personal opinion, which is not good for him, the talk page, or the article.

We need some calm, some space, and some intelligent discussion about what reliable sources say (not what our own opinions are); if we're given that, my guess is we'll reach an agreement fairly quickly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the criticism of Localzuk for requesting page protection has to stop, because he did the right thing. He had no control over which version was protected; there was so much reverting going on, it could easily have changed several times before the admin protected. The protection has given us some space to have a calm and focused discussion about what the sources say — which is the only thing we should be talking about, rather than simply exchanging our prejudices, which is what this talk page is mostly about. I ask that we deal with one issue at a time, and that Nathan takes a rest from this page for at least 72 hours, then offers an analysis of the discussion upon his return. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk did a shady thing, and it made the situation worse not better. I think that Nathan's contribution has been valuable. I suggest that if Nathan accepts your recommendation you should offer to revert the article to his preferred version for the time while he observes. Haber 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He acted correctly, and one of us should have done it sooner, if anything. The situation couldn't have gotten much worse. We had a multi-editor revert war, and a talk page dominated by one very new editor who was posting tens of thousands of words of his own opinion, so that no sensible discussion could talk place. It's exactly that kind of situation protection is intended for, and the page is protected on whatever version it's on when the admin arrives to protect. Please try to adopt a constructive approach, rather than arguing about the lock. We need to move on and focus, one issue at a time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just one last post as I'm being attacked: I'm passing up my right to continue to participate to appease a request from an editor who has not contributed in discussion much and not even read my comments by her own admission (a usual prerequisite for being able to comment). The first thing you do is abuse my absence immediately by attempting to make out my contribution was not worthy of respect or is POV (and imply I'm new for being on here a year). You had numerous opportunities and requests to participate and you didn't. Yet I'm extending you a personal courtesy despite all that for pretty baseless reasons. Had you read my contributions you'd see there's been a lot of research, reasoned argument and responses to others in there as well as attempts to mediate. A bit of courtesy is in order SV as you've appeared to show very little so far and then launched attack on me and a defence of an action described as "unscrupulous" by the blocking editor. If you simply read the discussion forum even a little bit you'd perhaps not need it all explained again, and had you participated in discussion when first requested by me this would have been resolved long ago. With that said I'll continue hold of contributing as a personal favour to you and hopefully you'll take some time to perhaps revise your statements about my contributions, possibly apologise and even read some of them.. NathanLee 02:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Nathan, it's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

All that's required from you is a few simple answers SV. If the whole discussion board is too hard: try the recent request for comment section put up by Coroebus. Your definition appears to be eccentric and unsupported by any real source (other than creative reading of articles). There's been so many opportunities for you to simply back up via references that you've failed to do from when you began editing and ignoring discussion repeatedly. Just answer some questions for a change: you found plenty of time to hit the revert button before. I'm happy holding off editing, but I'd first like some simple answers justifying the need for another 72 hours for as yet: unconvincingly supported POV/OR which you yourself appear to disagree with from the archive page. NathanLee 18:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a lousy "request", in bad faith, and doesn't further our cause. Should Nathan agree to honor this request, I will join the 72 hour moratorium out of protest. Jav43 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)